Location Privacy-Preserving Task Recommendation With Geometric Range Query in Mobile Crowdsensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mobile crowdsensing, location-based task recommendation requires each data requester to submit a task-related geometric range to crowdsensing service providers such that they can match suitable workers within this range. Generally, a trusted server (i.e., database owner) should be deployed to protect location privacy during the process, which is not desirable in practice. In this paper, we propose the location privacy-preserving task recommendation (PPTR) schemes with geometric range query in mobile crowdsensing without the trusted database owner. Specifically, we first propose a PPTR scheme with linear search complexity, named PPTR-L, based on a two-server model. By leveraging techniques of polynomial fitting and randomizable matrix multiplication, PPTR-L enables the service provider to find the workers located in the data requester’s arbitrary geometric query range without disclosing the sensitive location privacy. To further improve query efficiency, we design a novel data structure for task recommendation and propose PPTR-F to achieve faster-than-linear search complexity. Through security analysis, it is shown that our schemes can protect the confidentiality of workers’ locations and data requesters’ queries. Extensive experiments are performed to demonstrate that our schemes can achieve high computational efficiency in terms of geometric range query.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".