MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017967519 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2020.2983688

Profit-Oriented Task Allocation for Mobile Crowdsensing With Worker Dynamics: Cooperative Offline Solution and Predictive Online Solution

2020· article· en· W3017967519 on OpenAlexafffund
Xi Tao, Wei Song

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Online and offlineOnline algorithmCrowdsourcingScale (ratio)Data miningMachine learningAlgorithmWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) is a new paradigm of data collection with large-scale sensing. A group of mobile users are recruited as workers to move around in a specific region and carry out sensing tasks. A challenging problem of MCS is task allocation, especially when the MCS platform needs to assign tasks to selected workers among a large user pool and consider mixed spatial and temporal features, including locations and time windows of tasks, and trajectories and arrival time of workers. In this paper, we take into account these features and study the task allocation problem that assigns tasks to workers over time and guarantees the tasks are accomplished before their deadlines. We consider an offline scenario where the MCS platform is informed of all the information of tasks and workers in advance, and an online scenario where the platform does not know the information of workers before they enter the system. For the offline scenario, we provide a cooperative ant colony algorithm with swarm intelligence to approximate the optimal solution in large-scale cases. For the online scenario with incomplete information, we propose several online algorithms, among which the predictive online algorithm exploits historical records of workers and performs the best. Finally, we conduct simulations and evaluate the differences among the online solutions and offline solutions. The results show that the proposed online solutions can approach the offline optimal solution in small-scale cases, and its approximation obtained by the cooperative offline solution in large-scale cases.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Mobile ComputingSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207