MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge-Based Machine Learning Boosting for Adversarial Task Detection in Mobile Crowdsensing

2020· article· en· W3093672075 on OpenAlexaff
Murat Şimşek, Burak Kantarcı, Azzedine Boukerche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaBoostMachine learningBoosting (machine learning)Decision treeMobile deviceExploitArtificial intelligenceFeature selectionTask (project management)Support vector machineComputer securityWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile Crowdsensing (MCS) leverages Sensing as a Service paradigm to contribute to the Internet of Things ecosystems through non-dedicated sensing capabilities of smart mobile devices. Distributed and non-trusted nature of MCS systems are vulnerable against various threats for the devices, MCS platforms, as well as the participating devices that provide sensory data services. Out of the many threats, submission of fake tasks may lead to drained resources at the participating devices, and clogged sensing server resources at MCS platforms. In this paper, classical machine learning (ML) performance is boosted by knowledge-based methods and sequential feature selection which is proposed for the first time against fake tasks submission to MCS platforms. Prior Knowledge Input and Prior Knowledge Input with Difference exploit AdaBoost and Decision Tree methods as initial accuracy to improve the accuracy of learning the legitimacy of submitted tasks to MCS platforms. Moreover, Sequential Feature Selection is implemented to investigate further improvements for the detection of task legitimacy in MCS campaigns. Intelligently selected 5 features amongst 10 possible features and implementation of knowledge-based methods boost the accuracy of machine learning performance from 93.67% to 97.37% for AdaBoost, and from 92.28% to 97.58% for Decision Trees.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207