An Approach to Securely Identifying Beneficial Collaboration in Decentralized Logistics Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of sharing manufacturing, inventory, or capacity to improve performance is applicable in many decentralized operational contexts. However, the solution of such problems commonly requires an intermediary or a broker to manage information security concerns of individual participants. Our goal is to examine use of cryptographic techniques to attain the same result without the use of a broker. To illustrate this approach, we focus on a problem faced by independent trucking companies that have separate pick-up and delivery tasks and wish to identify potential efficiency-enhancing task swaps while limiting the information they must reveal to identify these swaps. We present an algorithm that finds opportunities to swap loads without revealing any information except the loads swapped, along with proofs of the security of the protocol. We also show that it is incentive compatible for each company to correctly follow the protocol as well as provide their true data. We apply this algorithm to an empirical data set from a large transportation company and present results that suggest significant opportunities to improve efficiency through Pareto improving swaps. This paper thus uses cryptographic arguments in an operations management problem context to show how an algorithm can be proven incentive compatible as well as demonstrate the potential value of its use on an empirical data set.
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 | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".