MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293253993 · doi:10.1109/pst55820.2022.9851973

Efficient and Privacy-preserving Worker Selection in Mobile Crowdsensing Over Tentative Future Trajectories

2022· article· en· W4293253993 on OpenAlexaff
Xichen Zhang, Songnian Zhang, Suprio Ray, Ali A. Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsensingComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer securityInternet privacyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile Crowdsourcing (MCS) is a newly-emerged sensing paradigm where a group of workers is selected to collect and share real-time data for a particular task. With the recent advances of Internet of Things (IoTs), cloud computing, and 5G network, MCS has drawn great attention in recent years. Worker selection is one of the most fundamental problems in MCS, as the selected workers’ qualifications play a significant role in the service quality. In this paper, by extending the research scope of previous literature, we formulate a novel worker selection problem in MCS that incorporates spatial-temporal constraints over workers’ tentative future trajectories. Specifically, each worker is required to submit a tentative future trajectory in advance and the MCS platform only selects qualified workers who meet both the spatial and temporal constraints. To increase the efficiency of worker selection, we propose a hybrid indexing approach to efficiently index workers’ spatial-temporal information by combining MX-CIF quadtree and Interval tree. Besides, we design a greedy algorithm, which considers both the reliability of the selected workers and the overall budget at the same time. Furthermore, to protect workers’ sensitive spatial-temporal information from being disclosed to untrusted parties, we design a privacy-preserving technique by transferring workers’ real spatial-temporal information to the approximate data with restricted information. Security analysis shows that the proposed solution is privacy-preserving. Extensive experiments are conducted, and the results demonstrate that our scheme outperforms the baseline methods.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207