Invited Paper: AI-Based Security Design of Mobile Crowdsensing Systems: Review, Challenges and Case Studies
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
Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) is a distributed sensing paradigm that uses a variety of built-in sensors in smart mobile devices to enable ubiquitous acquisition of sensory data from surroundings. However, non-dedicated nature of MCS results in vulnerabilities in the presence of malicious participants to compromise the availability of the MCS components, particularly the servers and participants' devices. In this paper, we focus on Denial of Service attacks in MCS where malicious participants submit illegitimate task requests to the MCS platform to keep MCS servers busy while having sensing devices expend energy needlessly. After reviewing Artificial Intelligence-based security solutions for MCS systems, we focus on a typical location-based and energy-oriented DoS attack, and present a security solution that applies ensemble techniques in machine learning to identify illegitimate tasks and prevent personal devices from pointless energy consumption so as to improve the availability of the whole system. Through simulations, we show that ensemble techniques are capable of identifying illegitimate and legitimate tasks while gradient boosting appears to be a preferable solution with an AUC performance higher than 0.88 in the precision-recall curve. We also investigate the impact of environmental settings on the detection performance so as to provide a clearer understanding of the model. Our performance results show that MCS task legitimacy decisions with high F-scores are possible for both illegitimate and legitimate tasks.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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