Anonymous Authentication on Trust in Blockchain-Based Mobile Crowdsourcing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile crowdsourcing (MCS) has become an effective data collection method due to its mobility, low cost, and flexibility. However, since centralized MCS confronts severe security and privacy risks in reality, many researchers are devoted to building a decentralized MCS system based on blockchain. Despite the effectiveness of these schemes, they fail to offer anonymous authentication on the trust of MCS nodes, although privacy is a main concern in MCS and trust plays an important role in a series of MCS activities, such as worker selection and truth discovery. Nevertheless, anonymous authentication on trust is not a trivial issue since trust evaluation usually conflicts with anonymity, which is a necessary privacy requirement in an open MCS environment. To tackle this problem, we leverage Intel software guard extension (SGX) and propose a scheme to anonymously authenticate trust with trustworthy trust evaluation in a blockchain-based MCS system. The scheme employs an SGX-enabled cloud server to periodically alter user public/private key pairs and mix newly altered keys among a number of faked keys in order to ensure unlinkability. Besides, we consider the unique features of MCS and work out a novel trust evaluation method by aggregating both subjective feedback and objective behaviors. Finally, we conduct several analyses and experiments to illustrate its security and efficiency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".