Toward Privacy-Preserving Valet Parking in Autonomous Driving Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated valet parking, deemed as a key milestone on the way to autonomous driving, has great potential to improve the “last-mile” driving experience for users. On the other hand, it triggers serious risks on vehicle theft and location privacy leakage. To address these issues, we propose a secure and privacy-preserving automated valet parking protocol for self-driving vehicles. The proposed protocol is characterized by extending anonymous authentication to support two-factor authentication with mutual traceability for reducing the risks of vehicle theft and preventing the privacy leakage of users in automated valet parking. Specifically, based on one-time password and secure mobile devices, two-factor authentication is achieved between vehicles and smartphones to ensure vehicle security in remote pickup. By exploiting the BBS+ signature and the Cuckoo filter, user location privacy is protected against the curious parking lots and service providers. In addition, the traceable tags are designed to enable a trusted authority to identify the vehicles and users for localizing a stolen or missing vehicle and preventing the slandering of greedy users. Finally, formal security analysis on the proposed protocol is given to show that the authentication, anonymity, and traceability can be reduced to standard hard assumptions, and performance evaluation demonstrates the proposed protocol is efficient and practical to be implemented in autonomous driving era.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".