4.7 Article

SRA: Secure Reverse Auction for Task Assignment in Spatial Crowdsourcing

期刊

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TKDE.2019.2893240

关键词

Privacy; reverse auction; spatial crowdsourcing; task assignment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61872330, 61572336, 61572457, 61632016, 61379132, 61532018, 61836007, 61832017, U1709217]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province in China [BK20131174, BK2009150]
  3. Natural Science Research Project of Jiangsu Higher Education Institution [18KJA520010, 17KJA520003]
  4. Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies [AHY150300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we study a new type of spatial crowdsourcing, namely competitive detour tasking, where workers can make detours from their original travel paths to perform multiple tasks, and each worker is allowed to compete for preferred tasks by strategically claiming his/her detour costs. The objective is to make suitable task assignment by maximizing the social welfare of crowdsourcing systems and protecting workers' private sensitive information. We first model the task assignment problem as a reverse auction process. We formalize the winning bid selection of reverse auction as an $n$n-to-one weighted bipartite graph matching problem with multiple 0-1 knapsack constraints. Since this problem is NP-hard, we design an approximation algorithm to select winning bids and determine corresponding payments. Based on this, a Secure Reverse Auction (SRA) protocol is proposed for this novel spatial crowdsourcing. We analyze the approximation performance of the proposed protocol and prove that it has some desired properties, including truthfulness, individual rationality, computational efficiency, and security. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first theoretically provable secure auction protocol for spatial crowdsourcing systems. In addition, we also conduct extensive simulations on a real trace to verify the performance of the proposed protocol.

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