MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self Organizing Feature Map for Fake Task Attack Modelling in Mobile Crowdsensing

2019· article· en· W3009108138 on OpenAlexaff
Yueqian Zhang, Murat Şimşek, Burak Kantarcı

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCrowdsensingOverhead (engineering)Task (project management)Cluster analysisPopulationFeature (linguistics)Mobile deviceComputer securityEnergy (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceReal-time computingEngineeringWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clogging attacks in mobile crowdsensing (MCS) denote injection of fake sensing tasks into MCS campaigns in order to interfere with service ability and user participation in sensing campaigns. Due to the lack of a realistic location-based and energy-oriented clogging attack model in MCS, this type of attacks have not been well investigated. To this end, for the first time, we introduce a self organizing feature map (SOFM)-based clogging attack model that aims at maximizing the number of affected participants according to the location of attack zones. These zones are identified by clustering 2-D coordinates of all potential participants and finding out aggregation areas of their mobile devices. We evaluate and verify the introduced attack model via simulations by comparing it to an attack model that relies on random mobility of illegitimate tasks over the attack zones. Our simulation results demonstrate that SOFM-based modeling of clogging attacks in MCS results in a significant impact with almost 50% affected participant population, 24% affected recruitment decisions, and up to 28% energy overhead introduced by illegitimate tasks injected to the MCS campaigns.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
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.

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