4.7 Article

An intelligent incentive mechanism for coverage of data collection in cognitive internet of things

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2019.04.043

关键词

Coverage; Crowd source network; Quality of information; Incentive; Intelligence sensing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61772554]
  2. Jiangsu High Technology Research Key Laboratory for Wireless Sensor Networks, China [NLBKF201804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cognitive Internet of Things (CIoT) is viewed as the current IoT integrated with cognitive and cooperative mechanisms to promote performance and achieve intelligence. Intelligence sensing has recently become a key research field. We consider the sensing information coverage issues with intelligent technologies, where people contribute data samples for CIoT captured by sensors, typically on smartphones. For CIoT, deficiencies of sensing information coverage result in loss of human life and social unrest. To tackle this challenge, in this paper, we first propose a new metric, called the Quality of Information Coverage (QIC), which characterizes information coverage quality and rewards for data sensing to maximize the QIC. Furthermore, a market-based incentive mechanism is formulated to guarantee the QIC. We analyze the market equilibrium point, and obtain an optimal expression for generating maximum payoffs for CIoT and reporters. Finally, the effects of a market-based incentive mechanism are examined through extensive simulations. The results demonstrate that the intelligent incentive control mechanism reaches the equilibrium point with a higher QIC than other existing schemes. The QIC algorithm proposed in this paper ensures that the standard deviation number of collected data samples for some areas is reduced by 50%-75%, compared to the existing algorithms, thus, these data samples are balanced. Compare to these non-QIC-aware algorithms, the average price of sensing data is reduced by 18.94%. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据