MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969673691 · doi:10.1109/dsn-w.2019.00023

Reliability-Driven Task Assignment in Vehicular Crowdsourcing: A Matching Game

2019· article· en· W2969673691 on OpenAlexafffund
Talal Halabi, Mohammad Zulkernine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCrowdsourcingComputer scienceScalabilityReliability (semiconductor)Probabilistic logicQuality of serviceReputationTask (project management)Matching (statistics)Distributed computingComputer networkArtificial intelligenceEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicular crowdsourcing is an emerging mobile sensing-based paradigm in which a service platform manages the allocation of data collection and processing tasks to vehicles according to their itinerary, expected response time, and optimal reward. However, selfish or malicious vehicles may take advantage of the platform to maximize their profit or even attack the deployed sensing applications and compromise their decisions by transmitting unreliable data, which can degrade the quality of delivered services and negatively affect the platform reward and reputation. In this paper, we design a task assignment mechanism for vehicular crowdsourcing based on vehicles' reliability to protect the platform from such threats. First, a beta reputation system is adopted for probabilistic reliability assessment according to vehicles' behavior. Then, a new multi-dimensional task assignment problem, which proves to be NP-complete, is modeled as a many-to-one matching game between the platform and vehicles by defining reliability and reward-based preference functions. Finally, a distributed matching algorithm that aims at maximizing the platform reward by assigning the tasks to reliable participants is presented. The mechanism also achieves privacy-preservability by enabling vehicles to engage in the task allocation process without necessarily unveiling their sensitive information. Results show that the proposed mechanism increases the quality of crowdsourcing services by assigning the tasks to reliable and benign vehicles, and adheres to the scalability requirements of the system.

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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207