PPCS: An Intelligent Privacy-Preserving Mobile-Edge Crowdsensing Strategy for Industrial IoT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile-edge crowdsensing is capable of providing a large amount of data via pervasive mobile terminals for Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). However, the generated data often contain users' sensitive information, which suggests the significance of privacy preserving in data aggregation and analysis for IIoT. Privacy preserving in mobile-edge crowdsensing have conflicting objectives, i.e., the edge fusion center (FC) requires data of better quality for data fusion with higher accuracy whereas participatory users (PUs) desire better privacy preserving by larger noise injection. Therefore, how to select proper noises to achieve the tradeoff between accuracy and privacy is a challenging problem. In addition, FC is subject to data tempering due to the lack of data reliability validations and incentive mechanisms. To tackle these problems, we propose a novel privacy-preserving mobile-edge crowdsensing strategy (PPCS) for IIoT. Specifically, PPCS provides a Kullback-Leibler privacy-preserving data aggregation using a reputation-based incentive mechanism. On the other hand, PPCS offers hypothesis test-based data reliability validation and PU's reputation update, which collaborate to ease the impact of tampered data. Meanwhile, a reinforcement learning algorithm, the expected Sarsa, is applied to obtain the optimal test threshold. Theoretical analysis and experimental results show that PPCS is an energy-efficient strategy and the data provided by PPCS has a better aggregation accuracy than certain baseline strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it