MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Privacy-Preserving Multi-Location Task Allocation in Fog-Assisted Vehicular Crowdsourcing

2024· article· en· W4402159729 on OpenAlexaff
Yantao Yu, Yunguo Guan, Xiaoping Xue, Jingxiao Ma, Ellen Z. Zhang, Rongxing Lu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrowdsourcingComputer scienceTask (project management)Privacy protectionComputer securityWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-location task allocation is one of the most crucial issues in vehicular crowdsourcing (VCS). To ensure service quality, the VCS service provider prefers to assign multi-location tasks to the workers whose future trajectories have high spatial proximity with the task locations. However, this process requires workers and task owners to upload their precise locations to a not-fully-trusted service provider, thereby raising location privacy concerns. Although several privacy-preserving trajectory similarity evaluation schemes have been proposed, they either fail to match the multi-location task allocation scenario, or incur nontrivial computational costs due to homomorphic encryption. To address these challenges, we propose a novel efficient privacy-preserving multi-location task allocation scheme in fog-assisted VCS. Specifically, we design a lightweight secure Euclidean distance computation protocol based on arithmetic secret sharing (ASS), which can compute Euclidean distance without revealing the two input locations. Then, based on this protocol, we build our scheme that supports multi-location task allocation based on Hausdorff semi-distance (HSD). Our security analysis demonstrates the location privacy preservation of our scheme, and the experiment results on a real dataset also validate the efficiency of our scheme.

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 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 score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207