MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402124108 · doi:10.1109/ojits.2024.3453666

Position Verification in Connected Vehicles for Cyber Resilience Using Geofencing and Fuzzy Logic

2024· article· en· W4402124108 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsFuzzy logicPosition (finance)Resilience (materials science)Computer scienceComputer securityArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Position verification is essential in connected and autonomous vehicle technology to enable secure vehicle-to-everything communication. Previous attempts to verify location information have used specific hardware, traffic parameters, and statistical model-based techniques dependent on neighbouring vehicles and roadside infrastructure and whose judgements can be influenced by untrustworthy entities. Considering the back-and-forth communications during verification, these techniques are also unsuitable in the dynamic vehicular networking environment. In this context, this paper proposes a self-reliant trustbased position verification technique using dynamic geofencing, neural network, and Mamdani fuzzy logic controller. The method uses vehicular dynamics, such as distance between the sender and receiver vehicles, magnitude of the speed difference, and direction, to verify the trustworthiness of vehicle positions. An experimental analysis of a dataset of simulated driving scenarios in MATLAB demonstrates that the feedforward neural network records the highest direction classification performance at 99.8% in conjunction with the centroid defuzzification method. Subsequently, further quantitative analysis, including the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve with Area Under Curve and trust level distribution histograms, indicates that the suggested classification model outperforms a random classifier and effectively identifies false position data from the actual during trust computation.

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.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.255 · 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