MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Task Bundling based Multi-Platform Cooperation Mechanism for Mobile Crowdsensing

2024· article· en· W4400728419 on OpenAlexaff
Zixing Zhao, Baoxian Zhang, Chen Liu, Yao Zheng, Cheng Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrowdsensingComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Task (project management)Human–computer interactionDistributed computingComputer securityEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) is a cost-effective sensing paradigm by incentivizing mobile users to perform sensing tasks using their smartphones with rich embedded sensors. An important problem in MCS is how to achieve high task completion rate for location dependent tasks since some of them can be far away from potential users. Most existing work in this aspect assumes that there is only one service platform without consideration of existence of multiple platforms and also impact of their cooperation on task completion rate. In this paper, we design a task bundling based multi-platform cooperation mechanism (TBMCM) for completion of location dependent sensing tasks. The design objective is to maximize the system profit while improving the task completion rate. TBMCM works in a slot-by-slot manner. In each slot, each platform first assigns its tasks and task bundles to its registered users through reverse auctions and then submits information about its idle users and not-assigned-yet unpopular tasks to a cross-platform cooperation managing entity (CCM) for cross-platform cooperation. Then, the CCM entity releases the tasks and task bundles created using its collected tasks to the idle users. Meanwhile, each platform has the option to bundle its own tasks with the tasks provided by the CCM entity. A task bundling method is then designed to perform effective bundling between unpopular and popular tasks for improved task completion rate. We show the proposed mechanism satisfies individual and cooperative rationality. Extensive simulation results show the high performance of TBMCM in terms of task completion rate and system profit.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207