MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning-Based Detection of Fake Task Injection in Mobile Crowdsensing

2019· article· en· W3004069267 on OpenAlexaff
Ankkita Sood, Murat Şimşek, Yueqian Zhang, Burak Kantarcı

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep belief networkDeep learningComputer scienceAutoencoderArtificial intelligencePerceptronMobile deviceLeverage (statistics)Restricted Boltzmann machineBoltzmann machineMachine learningMultilayer perceptronArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) is a ubiquitous sensing paradigm where built-in sensors of smart mobile devices are empowered to acquire sensory data in lieu of dedicating large scale sensing infrastructures. One of the most crucial problems in mobile crowdsensing is the injection of fake sensing tasks to clog the energy, computing, storage and sensing resources of participating devices. In this paper, we present solutions that leverage deep networks to analyze the tasks submitted to MCS platforms. To this end, we model off-the-shelf deep learning models, namely Deep Autoencoder (Deep-AE), Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) and Deep Belief Network (DBN) in order to detect and filter out illegitimate tasks submitted to MCS campaigns. For the same purpose, we also utilize a Deep Multi-layer Perceptron (Deep-MLP) network instead of the well known Multi-layer Perceptron. Through numerical results on MCS data, we show that Deep-MLP outperforms its counterparts with 0.963 precision and 0.964 recall in the detection of fake sensing 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207