MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130719936 · doi:10.1109/euc.2008.149

Probabilistic Trust Management in Pervasive Computing

2008· article· en· W2130719936 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicComputer scienceTrust management (information system)WeightingUbiquitous computingScheme (mathematics)Distributed computingData miningComputer securityArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a probabilistic trust management approach for pervasive computing environment. The approach considers trust value as a probability that a device provides satisfactory interactions with its neighbors. A distributed trust management using recommendation was constructed. An iterative filtering method is employed to eliminate the effect of false recommendations while the weighting method is employed to capture the effect of time on the current behavior of devices. We have carried out performance evaluations using simulation experiments. The comparison made with a deterministic trust management scheme demonstrated that the probabilistic trust management approach performs better, than the deterministic approach while also ensuring the security of interactions, and quickly adapting to changes in the environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207