An evaluation framework for privacy‐preserving solutions applicable for blockchain‐based internet‐of‐things platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Blockchain‐based applications provide many promising opportunities to overcome the challenges associated with the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystems (eg, centralized architecture, data integrity, and reliability). In particular, blockchain technology offers many desirable features for IoT infrastructures, such as decentralization, trustworthiness, trackability, and immutability. However, while logging all transactions in a distributed blockchain ledger provides transparency, it also makes it possible to compromise user's privacy, thus posing a grand challenge to IoT architects and implementers. Over the past years, a set of solutions have been proposed for various scenarios, to address these privacy issues. In this paper, we survey these solutions, classify, and analyze their advantages and disadvantages. We also introduce an evaluation framework to evaluate the quality of the privacy‐preserving based on an adjustable weighting scheme. Finally, we rate the analyzed solutions based on their privacy ranks, and hope our evaluation can shed light on the future design of privacy‐preserving solutions applicable for blockchain‐based IoT platforms.
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 | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".