MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946170842 · doi:10.1145/3324921.3328786

Machine Learning-based Prevention of Battery-oriented Illegitimate Task Injection in Mobile Crowdsensing

2019· article· en· W2946170842 on OpenAlexafffund
Yueqian Zhang, Murat Şimşek, Burak Kantarcı

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCrowdsensingComputer scienceTask (project management)Battery (electricity)Mobile deviceHuman–computer interactionEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingComputer securityMachine learningPower (physics)EngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) is a cloud-inspired and non-dedicated sensing paradigm to enable ubiquitous sensing via built-in sensors of personalized devices. Due to disparate participants and sensing tasks, MCS is vulnerable to threats initiated by malicious participants, which can either be a participant providing sensory data or an end user injecting a fake task aiming at resource (e.g. battery, sensor, etc.) clogging at the participating devices. This paper builds on machine learning-based detection of illegitimate tasks, and investigates the impact of machine learning-based prevention of battery-oriented illegitimate task injection in MCS campaigns. To this end, we introduce two different attack strategies, and test the impact of ML-based detection and elimination of fake tasks on task completion rate, as well as the overall battery drain of participating devices. Simulation results confirm that up to 14% battery power can be saved at the expense of a slight decrease in the completion rate of 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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207