A Multi-Dimensional Contract Approach for Data Rewarding in Mobile Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data rewarding is a novel business model leading a new economic trend in mobile networks, in which the operators stimulate mobile users to watch ads with data rewards and ask for corresponding payments from advertisers. Yet, due to the uncertain nature of users' preferences, it is always challenging for the advertiser to find the best choice of data rewards to attain an optimum balance between ad revenue and rewards spent. In this paper, we build a general contract-theoretic framework to address the problem of data rewards design in a realistic asymmetric information scenario, where each user is associated with multi-dimensional private information, i.e., data valuation, ad valuation, and ad sensitivity. In particular, we model the interplay between the advertiser and users by using a multi-dimensional contract approach, and theoretically analyze optimal data rewarding schemes. To ensure global incentive compatibility, we utilize the structural properties of our contract problem and convert the multi-dimensional contract into an equivalent one-dimensional contract. Necessary and sufficient conditions for an optimal and feasible contract are then derived to provide incentives for engagement of users in data rewarding scheme. Extensive numerical evaluations validate the efficiency of the designed multi-dimensional contract for data rewarding compared to other benchmark schemes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".