Trust-Based Anomaly Detection in Emerging Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) consist of a large number of small-size, energy-constrained nodes and generally are deployed to monitor surrounding situation or relay generated packets in other devices. However, due to the openness of wireless media and the inborn self-organization feature of WSNs, that is, frequent interoperations among neighbouring nodes, network security has been tightly related to data credibility and/or transmission reliability, thus trust evaluation of network nodes is becoming another interesting issue. Obviously, how to describe node’s behaviors and how to integrate various characteristics to make the final decision are two major research aspects of trust model. In this paper, a new trust model is proposed to detect anomaly nodes based on fuzzy theory and revised evidence theory. By monitoring the behaviors of the evaluated nodes with multidimensional characteristics and integrating these pieces of information, the malicious nodes in a network can be identified and the normal operation of the whole network can be verified. In addition, to accelerate the detection process, a weighting judgment mechanism is adopted to deal with the uncertain states of evaluated nodes. Finally extensive simulations are conducted, and the results demonstrate that the proposed trust model can achieve higher detection ratio of malicious nodes in comparison with the previously reported results.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".