A trust management model in internet of vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) is one of the most evolving technologies, which has a major impact on our daily life. Almost all new devices will have a feature to be connected and controlled over the Internet. Several applications are utilizing IoT to enhance routine processes and actions efficiently. The Internet of Vehicles (IoV) evolved from IoT, where vehicles communicate with each other or with other objects to have a better transportation environment to reduce the number of accidents and save people’s lives. IoV is considered new fields that need security requirements including confidentiality, integrity, availability, authentication, and trust. Trust management technique is used to validate entities behaviors automatically against well-defined policies. The major categories of trust model in IoV are based on entity, data, or a combination of both. This paper proposes a trust model which is based on a combination of entity and data to define the trust of vehicles and utilize the public key infrastructure to distribute certificates to vehicles. Based on certificate validation, messages will be trusted and accepted. This model has been tested across different simulation scenarios which showed that the proposed model detected malicious vehicles and trusted vehicles did not accept their messages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".