MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386351953 · doi:10.1016/j.aej.2023.08.043

ART: Active recognition trust mechanism for Augmented Intelligence of Things (AIoT) in smart enterprise systems

2023· article· en· W4386351953 on OpenAlexaff
Geetanjali Rathee, Akshay Kumar, Sahil Garg, Bong Jun Choi, Mohammad Mehedi Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlexandria Engineering Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningKing Saud University
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Mechanism (biology)Transmission (telecommunications)Internet of ThingsComputer securityIdentification (biology)Interference (communication)Distributed computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In smart enterprise systems, augmented IoT can efficiently improve the decision-making, handling, and generation of a huge amount of information during communication. However, Augmented Internet-of-Things (AIoT) leads to various security and trust issues when transmitting information through intermediate devices. In a case where malicious devices can easily integrate with legitimate devices, it can further affect and interfere with the overall performance of the network system. Though various security surveys have been illustrated and schemes have been proposed by scientists, however, all of them are in their early stages. This paper proposes a trusted decision-making mechanism called Active Recognition Trust (ART), using AIoT for handling smart enterprise systems. The proposed mechanism integrates active recognition and associated reference mechanisms to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the secure transmission process by computing a trust value for each device using impact factors of function fusion systems before information exchanges. Simulation results show that the proposed mechanism can efficiently enhance performance while improving the accuracy of recognizing legitimate devices by reducing or eliminating interference from malicious devices. The proposed mechanism is evaluated using the transmission ratio, identification accuracy, average trust, and run cycle compared to the existing mechanisms. Further, the proposed mechanism achieves approximately 89% better improvement than the baseline approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlexandria Engineering JournalSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207