MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382322446 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.14156

Matching-based Hybrid Service Trading for Task Assignment over Dynamic Mobile Crowdsensing Networks

2023· preprint· en· W4382322446 on OpenAlexaff
Houyi Qi, Minghui Liwang, Seyyedali Hosseinalipour, Xiaoyu Xia, Zhipeng Cheng, Xianbin Wang, Zhenzhen Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Xiamen City
KeywordsComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Task (project management)Service (business)ProvisioningFutures contractQuality (philosophy)Mode (computer interface)Quality of serviceDistributed computingComputer securityComputer networkHuman–computer interactionBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By opportunistically engaging mobile users (workers), mobile crowdsensing (MCS) networks have emerged as important approach to facilitate sharing of sensed/gathered data of heterogeneous mobile devices. To assign tasks among workers and ensure low overheads, a series of stable matching mechanisms is introduced in this paper, which are integrated into a novel hybrid service trading paradigm consisting of futures trading mode and spot trading mode to ensure seamless MCS service provisioning. In the futures trading mode, we determine a set of long-term workers for each task through an overbooking-enabled in-advance many-to-many matching (OIA3M) mechanism, while characterizing the associated risks under statistical analysis. In the spot trading mode, we investigate the impact of fluctuations in long-term workers' resources on the violation of service quality requirements of tasks, and formalize a spot trading mode for tasks with violated service quality requirements under practical budget constraints, where the task-worker mapping is carried out via onsite many-to-many matching (O3M) and onsite many-to-one matching (OMOM). We theoretically show that our proposed matching mechanisms satisfy stability, individual rationality, fairness and computational efficiency. Comprehensive evaluations also verify the satisfaction of these properties under practical network settings, while revealing commendable performance on running time, participators' interactions, and service quality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.154 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207