MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Private, Fair, and Verifiable Aggregate Statistics for Mobile Crowdsensing in Blockchain Era

2020· article· en· W3103439472 on OpenAlexaff
Miao He, Jianbing Ni, Dongxiao Liu, Haomiao Yang, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVerifiable secret sharingComputer securityMobile paymentComputer networkElGamal encryptionEncryptionPaymentPublic-key cryptographyMobile computingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose FairCrowd, a private, fair, and verifiable framework for aggregate statistics in mobile crowdsensing based on the public blockchain. In specific, mobile users are incentivized to collect and share private data values (e.g., current locations) to fulfill a commonly interested task released by a customer, and the crowdsensing server computes aggregate statistics over the values of mobile users (e.g., the most popular location) for the customer. By utilizing the ElGamal encryption, the server learns nearly nothing about the private data or the statistical result. The correctness of aggregate statistics can be publicly verified by using a new efficient and verifiable computation approach. Moreover, the fairness of incentive is guaranteed based on the public blockchain in the presence of greedy service provider, customers, and mobile users, who may launch payment-escaping, payment-reduction, free-riding, double-reporting, and Sybil attacks to corrupt reward distribution. Finally, FairCrowd is proved to achieve verifiable aggregate statistics with privacy preservation for mobile users. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the high efficiency of FairCrowd for aggregate statistics in mobile crowdsensing.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207