4.7 Article

Frameworks for Privacy-Preserving Mobile Crowdsensing Incentive Mechanisms

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages 1851-1864

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TMC.2017.2780091

Keywords

Mobile crowdsensing; incentive mechanism; differential privacy

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation [1444059, 1461886, 1717315, 1717197]
  2. NSFC [61472193]
  3. NSF of Jiangsu Province [BK20141429]
  4. CCF-Tencent [RAGR20150107]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the rapid growth of smartphones, mobile crowdsensing emerges as a new paradigm which takes advantage of the pervasive sensor-embedded smartphones to collect data efficiently. Many auction-based incentive mechanisms have been proposed to stimulate smartphone users to participate in the mobile crowdsensing applications and systems. However, none of them has taken into consideration both the bid privacy of smartphone users and the social cost. In this paper, we design two frameworks for privacy-preserving auction-based incentive mechanisms that also achieve approximate social cost minimization. In the former, each user submits a bid for a set of tasks it is willing to perform; in the latter, each user submits a bid for each task in its task set. Both frameworks select users based on platform-defined score functions. As examples, we propose two score functions, linear and log functions, to realize the two frameworks. We rigorously prove that both proposed frameworks achieve computational efficiency, individual rationality, truthfulness, differential privacy, and approximate social cost minimization. In addition, with log score function, the two frameworks are asymptotically optimal in terms of the social cost. Extensive simulations evaluate the performance of the two frameworks and demonstrate that our frameworks achieve bid-privacy preservation although sacrificing social cost.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available