MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312689295 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2022.3230758

BlockSense: Towards Trustworthy Mobile Crowdsensing via Proof-of-Data Blockchain

2022· article· en· W4312689295 on OpenAlexaff
Junqin Huang, Linghe Kong, Long Cheng, Hong‐Ning Dai, Meikang Qiu, Guihai Chen, Xue Liu, Gang Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBlockchainComputer scienceCrowdsensingTrustworthinessComputer securityMobile computingProof of conceptComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) can promote data acquisition and sharing among mobile devices. Traditional MCS platforms are based on a triangular structure consisting of three roles: data requester, worker (i.e. , sensory data provider) and MCS platform. However, this centralized architecture suffers from poor reliability and difficulties in guaranteeing data quality and privacy, even provides unfair incentives for users. In this paper, we propose a blockchain-based MCS platform, namely BlockSense, to replace the traditional triangular architecture of MCS models by a decentralized paradigm. To achieve the goal of trustworthiness of BlockSense, we present a novel consensus protocol, namely Proof-of-Data (PoD), which leverages miners to conduct useful data quality validation work instead of “useless” hash calculation. Meanwhile, in order to preserve the privacy of the sensory data, we design a homomorphic data perturbation scheme, through which miners can verify data quality without knowing the contents of the data. We have implemented a prototype of BlockSense and conducted case studies on campus, collecting over 7,000 data from workers' mobile phones. Both simulations and real-world experiments show that BlockSense can not only improve system security, preserve data privacy and guarantee incentives fairness, but also achieve at least 5.6x faster than Ethereum smart contracts in verification efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Mobile ComputingSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207