PLP: Protecting Location Privacy Against Correlation Analyze Attack in Crowdsensing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowdsensing applications require individuals to share local and personal sensing data with others to produce valuable knowledge and services. Meanwhile, it has raised concerns especially for location privacy. Users may wish to prevent privacy leak and publish as many non-sensitive contexts as possible. Simply suppressing sensitive contexts is vulnerable to the adversaries exploiting spatio-temporal correlations in the user's behavior. In this work, we present PLP, a crowdsensing scheme which preserves privacy while it maximizes the amount of data collection by filtering a user's context stream. PLP leverages a conditional random field to model the spatio-temporal correlations among the contexts, and proposes a speed-up algorithm to learn the weaknesses in the correlations. Even if the adversaries are strong enough to know the filtering system and the weaknesses, PLP can still provably preserve privacy, with little computational cost for online operations. PLP is evaluated and validated over two real-world smartphone context traces of 34 users. The experimental results show that PLP efficiently protects privacy without sacrificing much utility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it