MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412755978 · doi:10.1007/s13177-025-00528-2

Misbehaviour Prediction in CAV Network using Aggregated Trust Analysis

2025· article· en· W4412755978 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

VenueInternational Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsSocial network analysisComputer scienceNetwork analysisEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) technology is rising in the transport sector due to its enormous benefits, including better traffic safety and efficiency. The intelligent decision in CAV relies on traffic data from in-vehicle sensors, neighbouring vehicles, and roadside infrastructure. The traffic data is prone to manipulation by internal and external attacks. This NTU’s CAV research focuses on message manipulation attacks, such as false position attacks. In this context, this paper proposes a novel misbehaviour prediction framework to identify malicious positions in CAV networks based on an aggregated trust analysis strategy. The proposed framework utilises Mamdani fuzzy logic for identification and will be applied to the onboard unit of every vehicle without depending on external infrastructure for validation. Through repeated observation of the concerned CAVs’ behaviour and trust values aggregation, the framework can predict potential misbehaviour accurately before it leads to safety-critical issues. The framework is validated using the VeReMi extension dataset and tested with supervised machine learning algorithms, including Decision Tree (DT), k-nearest Neighbour (KNN), Logistic Regression (LR), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). The simulation results show that the DT and SVM yield the highest sensitivity in detecting false positions. Although we used the results with KNN, the default module in previous studies, we discovered that it was competitively effective in identifying all position attacks, doing very well with eventual stop position attacks. Additional examination of the trust aggregation fuzzy model indicates that the F1 measure for constant false position attacks, random position attacks, and eventual stop position attacks is above 0.99 on average. In contrast, the F1 score for random and fixed offsets is less than 0.70. To achieve improved performance, we use weights that are inversely proportional to the sender-receiver distance for post-processing. We also analyse the performance of our proposed model against other fuzzy logic models. Overall, our fuzzy model shows competitive performance in detecting false position data, as indicated by the performance values.

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)0.002
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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.311 · 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