PDA: Privacy-Preserving Data Aggregation in Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing efficient data aggregation while preserving data privacy is a challenging problem in wireless sensor networks research. In this paper, we present two privacy-preserving data aggregation schemes for additive aggregation functions. The first scheme -cluster-based private data aggregation (CPDA)-leverages clustering protocol and algebraic properties of polynomials. It has the advantage of incurring less communication overhead. The second scheme -Slice-Mix-AggRegaTe (SMART)-builds on slicing techniques and the associative property of addition. It has the advantage of incurring less computation overhead. The goal of our work is to bridge the gap between collaborative data collection by wireless sensor networks and data privacy. We assess the two schemes by privacy-preservation efficacy, communication overhead, and data aggregation accuracy. We present simulation results of our schemes and compare their performance to a typical data aggregation scheme -TAG, where no data privacy protection is provided. Results show the efficacy and efficiency of our schemes. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is among the first on privacy-preserving data aggregation in wireless sensor networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".