MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406856692 · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2025.3535086

Towards Integrated Spatial Crowdsourcing: Online Privacy-Preserving Selection

2025· article· en· W4406856692 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrowdsourcingComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Information privacyInternet privacyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study an intriguing and practical scenario of online Spatial Crowdsourcing (SC), in which workers have the flexibility to perform tasks using various methods, such as walking, driving, or utilizing remote aerial vehicles (RAVs). This results in workers having heterogeneous, arbitrary, and non-stationary utilities over time. We refer to this scenario as integrated SC. Unfortunately, existing studies are limited in addressing integrated SC settings due to two aspects: (1) these studies are based on the assumption that workers’ utilities are independently and identically distributed and follow a stationary distribution like Gaussian, which does not hold in integrated SC; (2) their approaches fail to provide personalized privacy preservation for different workers. Motivated by these limitations, we closely investigate the heterogeneous utility and personalized privacy requirement in integrated SC and propose an Online Personalized Privacy-preserving Selection framework (OPPS). In this framework, we present an online selection policy that balances the exploration-exploitation trade-off given heterogeneous utilities and develop a built-in privacy policy that ensures differential privacy guarantee. We then demonstrate that our framework effectively addresses the trade-off by deriving a sublinear, privacy-related upper bound on regret that scales as <inline-formula><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$O(\sqrt{T})$</tex-math></inline-formula>. Extensive numerical simulations based on real-world drone datasets are conducted to validate the effectiveness of our framework compared with state-of-the-art approaches.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0070.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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