MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415367121 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3594082

Enhancing Privacy Preservation of IoT-Based Smart City Using Software-Defined Networking and Differential Privacy Distributions

2025· article· W4415367121 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Gheisari, Hamid Esmaeili Najafabadi, Saeed Kosari, Jana Shafi, Mazhar Hussain Malik, Christian Fernández‐Campusano, Sabitha Banu, Yi Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential privacySmart cityInternet of ThingsInformation privacyBig dataPrivacy softwareLow latency (capital markets)The InternetEdge computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) aims at connecting all objects through the Internet. The IoTbased smart city is the concept of employing IoT devices to manage cities more easily, quickly and effectively. Recently, a new paradigm has emerged in the networking world, called Software-defined Networking (SDN), which separates the control data plane and the data plane. On the other hand, IoT devices embedded in a smart city often detect sensitive data. It is of paramount importance to prevent leaking this data unintentionally, known as privacy-preserving. Although there are some methods to preserve data privacy in smart cities, they are either expensive or cannot preserve privacy efficiently. Intending to provide an efficient privacy-preserving in a cost-effective smart city, we propose a novel method called Differential Privacy-preserving Smart City (DPSmartCity). It maintains the privacy of IoT devices sensitive data by equipping the environment with SDN technologies and leveraging a customized Differential Privacy (DP) technique while its distribution changes frequently. We then mathematically investigate the DP aspect of the given algorithms by providing several proofs. The evaluation results show the effectiveness of the proposed method for diffident parameters, such as overload amount and latency points. Based on our threat model, it is 25.89% more robust against unintentional disclosure of sensitive data from a penetration point of view.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207