MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293159724 · doi:10.5383/juspn.09.02.002

Evaluation of Privacy Preserving In-Network Aggregation for Different Routing Structures in WSNs

2017· article· en· W4293159724 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ubiquitous Systems and Pervasive Networks · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData aggregatorComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)EncryptionWireless sensor networkComputer networkCryptosystemRouting protocolRouting (electronic design automation)CryptographyDistributed computingComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing secure aggregation protocols for efficient data collection is driven mainly by preserving the privacy and integrity of the network data. Targeting the false data injection attack in wireless sensor networks (WSNs), a secure innetwork aggregation scheme for preserving the privacy of the data, is proposed in this work. The proposed scheme is able to compute the SUM, MEAN and COUNT of the network data based on an encryption scheme which uses pallier cryptosystem. Extensive analysis with different routing structures (cluster, tree and chain) are used for validating the efficacy of the proposed scheme over existing approaches

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.263 · 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