MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884705561 · doi:10.3390/s18082440

A Privacy Preserving Scheme for Nearest Neighbor Query

2018· article· en· W2884705561 on OpenAlexaff
Yuhang Wang, Zhihong Tian, Hongli Zhang, Shen Su

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencek-nearest neighbors algorithmLocation-based serviceObfuscationData miningAdaptabilityMobile deviceNoise (video)Information privacyInformation retrievalComputer networkComputer securityMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, location privacy concerns that arise when using the nearest neighbor query services have gained increasing attention, as such services have become pervasive in mobile social networks devices and the IoT environments. State-of-the-art privacy preservation schemes focus on the obfuscation of the location information, which has suffered from various privacy attacks and the tradeoff of the quality of service. By noticing the fact that the user's location could be replaced by their surrounding wireless sensor infrastructures in proximity, in this paper, we propose a wireless sensor access point-based scheme for the nearest neighbor query, without using the location of the user. Then, a noise-addition-based method that preserves user's location privacy was proposed. To further strengthen the adaptability of the approach to real-world environments, several performance-enhancing methods are introduced, including an R-tree-based Noise-Data Retrieval Algorithm (RNR), and a nearest neighbor query method based on our research. Both performance and security evaluations are conducted to validate our approach. The results show the effectiveness and the practicality of our work.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207