The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2606.22115 · v1 · pith:Y7BAT6Q7 · submitted 2026-06-20 · cs.NI · cs.CR· cs.GT

Game-Theoretic Framework for Private Data Sharing in Vehicular Networks

Yousef AlSaqabi , Yinan Zhou , Faisal Nawab , Bhaskar Krishnamachari This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-06-26 11:05 UTCgrok-4.3pith:Y7BAT6Q7record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.NI cs.CRcs.GT
keywords game theoryprivacy preservationvehicular networkssecure multiparty computationdata marketplaceStackelberg gameincentive mechanismslocation data
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Stackelberg game combined with secure multiparty computation lets vehicles share sensor data such that only consumers see the full aggregate.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a hybrid architecture for vehicular data collection that keeps raw individual data hidden through secure multiparty computation on separate servers. A coordinator handles flow while data consumers offer economic incentives structured as a Stackelberg game, so vehicles weigh privacy risks against rewards when deciding to participate. Experiments on real location traces measure how accurately an adversary could rebuild a vehicle's path from partial shares, showing the setup reduces exposure. The work also describes a deployed data-trading platform that turns this into a marketplace. If the incentives align properly, the system supports ongoing data exchange without compromising individual privacy.

Core claim

The framework ensures that only the data consumer can access the fully aggregated data, preventing individual raw data exposure and significantly reducing privacy risks. By integrating principles of the Stackelberg competition from game theory, the approach dynamically balances privacy and economic incentives, enabling vehicles to make participation decisions based on perceived privacy risks and incentives.

What carries the argument

The hybrid architecture of vehicles, independent servers using secure multiparty computation, a coordinator node, and data consumers, with Stackelberg competition governing incentive setting and participation choices.

If this is right

  • Vehicles decide whether to share data based on their perception of privacy risks versus offered incentives.
  • Privacy is preserved because individual raw data never reaches the consumer or other parties.
  • Adversary reconstruction accuracy from partial data serves as the metric for privacy risk in location traces.
  • The system creates a practical marketplace for vehicle data trading while maintaining privacy guarantees.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same incentive structure might apply to other sensor networks where participants have privacy concerns.
  • Explicit modeling of how privacy risk is calculated could allow testing different adversary strengths.
  • Real deployment would require verifying that the coordinator does not become a single point of failure or leakage.

Load-bearing premise

That secure multiparty computation and the Stackelberg incentive structure together will keep raw data private and that vehicles will act rationally when assessing their own privacy risks against rewards.

What would settle it

Demonstrating a case where an adversary reconstructs a vehicle's full path with high accuracy using only the data made available under the framework, or where vehicles refuse to participate despite positive net incentives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22115 by Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Faisal Nawab, Yinan Zhou, Yousef AlSaqabi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System Model be enabled for debugging purposes. However, in operational deployment, the coordinator does not access raw vehicle trajectories. All aggregation is performed under the SMPC protocol, and the coordinator only receives aggregated outputs reconstructed from distributed shares. We assume the use of blockchain-based smart contracts to foster autonomous, transparent, and trustworthy agreements among… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Paths with Different Number of Data Points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Data consumer’s average utility as a function of the number of vehicles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Privacy Loss as a function of the frequency of data transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Vehicle participation with 5 servers in the network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vehicle participation with 15 servers in the network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Path similarity under 10% and 25% increased adversarial information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Consumer read latency of networks with different server counts as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a novel game-theoretic framework designed to enhance privacy and scalability in decentralized vehicular data collection systems. The proposed hybrid architecture comprises vehicles that supply sensor data, independent servers that process data via secure multiparty computation, a coordinator node that manages data flow, and data consumers that set economic incentives. Crucially, our framework ensures that only the data consumer can access the fully aggregated data, preventing individual raw data exposure and significantly reducing privacy risks. By integrating principles of the Stackelberg competition from game theory, our approach dynamically balances privacy and economic incentives, enabling vehicles to make participation decisions based on perceived privacy risks and incentives. We empirically validate our framework using real-world vehicular location data, quantifying privacy risks by evaluating the accuracy with which a potential adversary can reconstruct a vehicle's path using only a subset of the shared data. This paper details the development and deployment of a data-trading platform within this framework, introducing a practical and privacy-preserving marketplace for profitable vehicle data sharing. Through experiments and simulations, we evaluate the effectiveness of the system in preserving privacy and explore the dynamics that influence vehicle participation. Our findings highlight the robustness of the proposed framework in preserving privacy while supporting an active data market.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a game-theoretic framework for privacy-preserving and scalable data collection in vehicular networks. It describes a hybrid architecture with vehicles supplying sensor data, independent servers performing secure multiparty computation (MPC), a coordinator managing flow, and data consumers setting incentives. The approach applies Stackelberg competition to dynamically balance perceived privacy risks against economic incentives for vehicle participation. Privacy is claimed to be ensured because only the consumer sees the fully aggregated result. The framework is empirically validated on real-world vehicular location data by measuring an adversary's accuracy in reconstructing vehicle paths from subsets of shared data, and the paper details an associated data-trading platform.

Significance. If the MPC security claims and incentive model are rigorously established with a matching threat model and validation, the work could offer a practical architecture for privacy-preserving vehicular data marketplaces that combines cryptographic primitives with game-theoretic participation incentives. The use of path-reconstruction accuracy as a privacy metric provides a concrete, falsifiable evaluation approach that could be extended to other location-based systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and empirical validation section: the central claim that the MPC-based hybrid architecture ensures only the consumer accesses fully aggregated data (preventing individual raw data exposure) is not supported by the described experiments. The validation instead quantifies an adversary's path-reconstruction accuracy from a subset of shared data; this evaluates a different leakage scenario and does not test MPC protocol security, coordinator collusion resistance, or correctness under any stated adversary model (e.g., number of servers, corruption threshold, semi-honest vs. malicious).
  2. [Abstract] Game-theoretic model and privacy quantification sections: no equations, payoff definitions, or derivations are supplied for the Stackelberg game, the privacy-risk function used in vehicle decisions, or how incentives are computed. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether participation decisions are rational or whether the claimed dynamic balance between privacy and incentives holds beyond the high-level description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and empirical validation section: the central claim that the MPC-based hybrid architecture ensures only the consumer accesses fully aggregated data (preventing individual raw data exposure) is not supported by the described experiments. The validation instead quantifies an adversary's path-reconstruction accuracy from a subset of shared data; this evaluates a different leakage scenario and does not test MPC protocol security, coordinator collusion resistance, or correctness under any stated adversary model (e.g., number of servers, corruption threshold, semi-honest vs. malicious).

    Authors: We acknowledge the distinction raised. The privacy claim for the hybrid architecture rests on standard MPC security assumptions (independent servers, specified corruption threshold, semi-honest model) under which only the aggregated output is revealed to the consumer. The empirical section instead evaluates a separate leakage vector: path reconstruction from partial shared data in the vehicular phase. The experiments therefore do not constitute a direct security proof or simulation of the MPC protocol, coordinator collusion, or formal adversary model. In revision we will (i) explicitly state the MPC threat model and assumptions, (ii) separate the MPC guarantees from the path-reconstruction metric, and (iii) add a short discussion of why the latter complements rather than substitutes for cryptographic validation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Game-theoretic model and privacy quantification sections: no equations, payoff definitions, or derivations are supplied for the Stackelberg game, the privacy-risk function used in vehicle decisions, or how incentives are computed. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether participation decisions are rational or whether the claimed dynamic balance between privacy and incentives holds beyond the high-level description.

    Authors: The observation is accurate: the manuscript currently describes the Stackelberg model and privacy-risk function at a conceptual level without supplying the explicit equations, payoff matrices, or equilibrium derivations. This prevents independent verification of rationality and incentive balance. We will add the full mathematical formulation—including the leader’s utility, followers’ privacy-cost functions, the Stackelberg equilibrium computation, and how the coordinator derives incentive levels—in a dedicated subsection of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework relies on external MPC and game theory primitives

full rationale

The paper describes a hybrid architecture and Stackelberg-based incentives for vehicular data sharing, with privacy claims grounded in standard secure multiparty computation properties and empirical measurement of path reconstruction accuracy on real-world location data. No equations, parameter fits, self-citations, or derivations appear in the provided text that reduce any prediction or result to the inputs by construction. The validation step tests a distinct leakage scenario independent of the core MPC security assumption.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full text would be required to audit modeling choices such as payoff functions or privacy metrics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5751 in / 1092 out tokens · 23957 ms · 2026-06-26T11:05:05.663184+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Internet of vehicles: From intelligent grid to autonomous cars and vehicular fogs,

    E.-K. Lee, M. Gerla, G. Pau, U. Lee, and J.-H. Lim, “Internet of vehicles: From intelligent grid to autonomous cars and vehicular fogs,” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 12, 09 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Machine learning for vehicular networks: Recent advances and application examples,

    H. Ye, L. Liang, G. Ye Li, J. Kim, L. Lu, and M. Wu, “Machine learning for vehicular networks: Recent advances and application examples,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    A review on vehicle to vehicle communication system applications,

    H. A. Ameen, A. Mahamad, S. Saon, D. M. Nor, and K. Ghazi, “A review on vehicle to vehicle communication system applications,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 188–198, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    A survey on road safety and traffic efficiency vehicular applications based on c-v2x technologies,

    I. Soto, M. Calder ´on, O. Amador, and M. Urue ˜na, “A survey on road safety and traffic efficiency vehicular applications based on c-v2x technologies,”Vehicular Communications, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Cellular v2x transmission for connected and autonomous vehicles stan- dardization, applications, and enabling technologies,

    H. Abou-zeid, F. Pervez, A. Adinoyi, M. Aljlayl, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Cellular v2x transmission for connected and autonomous vehicles stan- dardization, applications, and enabling technologies,”IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 91–98, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    The current security challenges of ve- hicle communication in the future transportation system,

    H. P. Dai Nguyen and R. Zolt ´an, “The current security challenges of ve- hicle communication in the future transportation system,” in2018 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY), 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Blockchain-Based Internet of Vehicles: Distributed Network Architecture and Performance Analysis,

    T. Jiang, H. Fang, and H. Wang, “Blockchain-Based Internet of Vehicles: Distributed Network Architecture and Performance Analysis,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4640–4649, Jun. 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    A survey on privacy and security of Internet of Things,

    M. Ogonji, G. Okeyo, and J. M. Wafula, “A survey on privacy and security of Internet of Things,”Computer Science Review, vol. 38, p. 100312, Nov. 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    A summary of security techniques-based blockchain in iov,

    C. Chen and S. Quan, “A summary of security techniques-based blockchain in iov,”Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2022, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Driving with guidance: Exploring the trade-off between gps utility and privacy concerns among drivers,

    Y . AlSaqabi and S. Chattopadhyay, “Driving with guidance: Exploring the trade-off between gps utility and privacy concerns among drivers,” arXiv:2309.12601, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    A survey on security and privacy issues in iov

    T. Garg, N. Kagalwalla, P. Churi, A. Pawar, and S. Deshmukh, “A survey on security and privacy issues in iov.”International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering, vol. 10, no. 5, 2020

    2020

  12. [12]

    Survey on blockchain- based applications in internet of vehicles,

    L. Mendiboure, M. A. Chalouf, and F. Krief, “Survey on blockchain- based applications in internet of vehicles,”Computer and Electrical Engineering, vol. 84, p. 106646, Jun. 2020

    2020

  13. [13]

    Privacy-Preserving Solutions in Blockchain-Enabled Internet of Vehicles,

    K. Kaltakis, P. Polyzi, G. Drosatos, and K. Rantos, “Privacy-Preserving Solutions in Blockchain-Enabled Internet of Vehicles,”Applied Sciences, vol. 11, p. 9792, Oct. 2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    Security Services Using Blockchains: A State of the Art Survey,

    T. Salman, M. Zolanvari, A. Erbad, R. Jain, and M. Samaka, “Security Services Using Blockchains: A State of the Art Survey,”IEEE Commu- nications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 858–880, 2019

    2019

  15. [15]

    Secure Multi-Party Computation: Theory, practice and applications,

    C. Zhao, S. Zhao, M. Zhao, Z. Chen, C.-Z. Gao, H. Li, and Y .-a. Tan, “Secure Multi-Party Computation: Theory, practice and applications,” Information Sciences, vol. 476, pp. 357–372, Feb. 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    M. J. Osborneet al.,An introduction to game theory. Oxford university press New York, 2004, vol. 3

    2004

  17. [17]

    Incentivizing private data sharing in vehicular networks: A game-theoretic approach,

    Y . AlSaqabi and B. Krishnamachari, “Incentivizing private data sharing in vehicular networks: A game-theoretic approach,” in2023 IEEE 98th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2023-Fall), 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  18. [18]

    Towards a Privacy-Preserving Way of Vehicle Data Sharing – A Case for Blockchain Technology?

    C. Kaiser, M. Steger, A. Dorri, A. Festl, A. Stocker, M. Fellmann, and S. Kanhere, “Towards a Privacy-Preserving Way of Vehicle Data Sharing – A Case for Blockchain Technology?”Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications 2018, pp. 111–122, 2019

    2018

  19. [19]

    A privacy-preserving sensory data sharing scheme in Internet of Vehicles,

    Q. Kong, R. Lu, M. Ma, and H. Bao, “A privacy-preserving sensory data sharing scheme in Internet of Vehicles,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 92, pp. 644–655, Mar. 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Cloud-based RFID mutual authentication scheme for efficient privacy preserving in IoV,

    K. Fan, W. Jiang, Q. Luo, H. Li, and Y . Yang, “Cloud-based RFID mutual authentication scheme for efficient privacy preserving in IoV,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 358, no. 1, pp. 193–209, Jan. 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    Blockchain Empowered Asynchronous Federated Learning for Secure Data Sharing in Internet of Vehicles,

    Y . Lu, X. Huang, K. Zhang, S. Maharjan, and Y . Zhang, “Blockchain Empowered Asynchronous Federated Learning for Secure Data Sharing in Internet of Vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 4298–4311, Apr. 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Blockchain-based anonymous authentication for traffic reporting in V ANETs,

    L. Zhang and J. Xu, “Blockchain-based anonymous authentication for traffic reporting in V ANETs,”Connection Science, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1038–1065, Dec. 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    Blockchain-Based Privacy- Preserving and Sustainable Data Query Service Over 5G-V ANETs,

    L.-Y . Yeh, N.-X. Shen, and R.-H. Hwang, “Blockchain-Based Privacy- Preserving and Sustainable Data Query Service Over 5G-V ANETs,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 15 909–15 921, Sep. 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    The economics of privacy,

    A. Acquisti, C. Taylor, and L. Wagman, “The economics of privacy,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 54, pp. 442–492, 06 2016

    2016

  25. [25]

    Selling privacy at auction,

    A. Ghosh and A. Roth, “Selling privacy at auction,” inProceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, 2011, pp. 199–208

    2011

  26. [26]

    Game theoretic ap- proaches in vehicular networks: A survey,

    Z. Sun, Y . Liu, J. Wang, A. Carie, and D. Cao, “Game theoretic ap- proaches in vehicular networks: A survey,”CoRR, vol. abs/2006.00992, 2020

    work page arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    Game Theory-Based Authentication Framework to Secure Internet of Vehicles with Blockchain,

    M. Gupta, R. Kumar, S. Shekhar, B. Sharma, R. B. Patel, S. Jain, I. B. Dhaou, and C. Iwendi, “Game Theory-Based Authentication Framework to Secure Internet of Vehicles with Blockchain,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 14, p. 5119, Jan. 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Game Theory Based Opportunistic Computation Offloading in Cloud-Enabled IoV,

    M. Liwang, J. Wang, Z. Gao, X. Du, and M. Guizani, “Game Theory Based Opportunistic Computation Offloading in Cloud-Enabled IoV,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 32 551–32 561, 2019

    2019

  29. [29]

    DAGIoV: A Framework for Vehicle to Vehicle Communication Using Directed Acyclic Graph and Game Theory,

    V . Hassija, V . Chamola, G. Han, J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, and M. Guizani, “DAGIoV: A Framework for Vehicle to Vehicle Communication Using Directed Acyclic Graph and Game Theory,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 4182–4191, Apr. 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    Game theory for distributed iov task offloading with fuzzy neural network in edge computing,

    X. Xu, Q. Jiang, P. Zhang, X. Cao, M. R. Khosravi, L. T. Alex, L. Qi, and W. Dou, “Game theory for distributed iov task offloading with fuzzy neural network in edge computing,”IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 4593–4604, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    A game-theoretical approach for user allocation in edge computing environment,

    Q. He, G. Cui, X. Zhang, F. Chen, S. Deng, H. Jin, Y . Li, and Y . Yang, “A game-theoretical approach for user allocation in edge computing environment,”IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 515–529, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Efficient multi-user computation offloading for mobile-edge cloud computing,

    X. Chen, L. Jiao, W. Li, and X. Fu, “Efficient multi-user computation offloading for mobile-edge cloud computing,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 2795–2808, 2016

    2016

  33. [33]

    Samuelson and W

    P. Samuelson and W. Nordhaus,Economics. McGraw Hill, 2009

    2009

  34. [34]

    Economics of network pricing with multiple isps,

    S. Shakkottai and R. Srikant, “Economics of network pricing with multiple isps,”IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 14, no. 6, p. 1233–1245, Dec. 2006

    2006

  35. [35]

    Secure multi-party com- putation on blockchain: An overview,

    H. Zhong, Y . Sang, Y . Zhang, and Z. Xi, “Secure multi-party com- putation on blockchain: An overview,” inParallel Architectures, Algo- rithms and Programming: 10th International Symposium, PAAP 2019, Guangzhou, China, December 12–14, 2019, Revised Selected Papers 10. Springer, 2020, pp. 452–460

    2019

  36. [36]

    X. Yi, R. Paulet, E. Bertino, X. Yi, R. Paulet, and E. Bertino,Homo- morphic encryption. Springer, 2014

    2014

  37. [37]

    A comprehensive survey on the applications of blockchain for securing vehicular networks,

    T. Alladi, V . Chamola, N. Sahu, V . Venkatesh, A. Goyal, and M. Guizani, “A comprehensive survey on the applications of blockchain for securing vehicular networks,” 2022

    2022

  38. [38]

    Machine learning classification over encrypted data,

    R. Bost, R. A. Popa, S. Tu, and S. Goldwasser, “Machine learning classification over encrypted data,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2014

    2014

  39. [39]

    Efficient private matching and set intersection,

    M. J. Freedman, K. Nissim, and B. Pinkas, “Efficient private matching and set intersection,” inAdvances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2004, C. Cachin and J. L. Camenisch, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 1–19

    2004

  40. [40]

    Refereed computation delegation of private sequence comparison in cloud computing,

    X. Ma, J. Li, and F. Zhang, “Refereed computation delegation of private sequence comparison in cloud computing,”International Journal of Network Security, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 743–753, 2015

    2015

  41. [41]

    Research on secure and privacy- preserving scheme based on secure multi-party computation for vanet,

    C. Song, M. Zhang, and W. Peng, “Research on secure and privacy- preserving scheme based on secure multi-party computation for vanet,” Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, vol. 9, pp. 99–107, 01 2018

    2018

  42. [42]

    Autompc: Efficient multi-party computation for secure and privacy-preserving cooperative control of connected autonomous vehicles,

    T. Li, L. Lin, and S. Gong, “Autompc: Efficient multi-party computation for secure and privacy-preserving cooperative control of connected autonomous vehicles,” inSafeAI@AAAI, 01 2019

    2019

  43. [43]

    General secure multi-party computation from any linear secret-sharing scheme,

    R. Cramer, I. Damg ˚ard, and U. Maurer, “General secure multi-party computation from any linear secret-sharing scheme,” inInternational Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, 2000. 13

    2000

  44. [44]

    Blockchain Meets V ANET: An Architecture for Identity and Location Privacy Protection in V ANET,

    H. Li, L. Pei, D. Liao, G. Sun, and D. Xu, “Blockchain Meets V ANET: An Architecture for Identity and Location Privacy Protection in V ANET,”Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1178–1193, Sep. 2019

    2019

  45. [45]

    Blockchain- based proof of location,

    M. Amoretti, G. Brambilla, F. Medioli, and F. Zanichelli, “Blockchain- based proof of location,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C), 2018, pp. 146–153

    2018

  46. [46]

    A secure and efficient blockchain- based data sharing scheme for location data,

    Z. Hu, Y . Yang, J. Wu, and C. Long, “A secure and efficient blockchain- based data sharing scheme for location data,”The 2022 4th International Conference on Blockchain Technology, 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    Blockchain-based secure data storage for distributed vehicular networks,

    M. U. Javed, M. Rehman, N. Javaid, A. Aldegheishem, N. A. Alrajeh, and M. Tahir, “Blockchain-based secure data storage for distributed vehicular networks,”Applied Sciences, 2020

    2020

  48. [48]

    Block-smpc: A blockchain-based secure multi-party computation for privacy-protected data sharing,

    Y . Yang, L. Wei, J. Wu, and C. Long, “Block-smpc: A blockchain-based secure multi-party computation for privacy-protected data sharing,” in Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Blockchain Technology, 2020, pp. 46–51

    2020

  49. [49]

    AI-Powered Blockchain - A Decentralized Secure Multiparty Computation Protocol for IoV,

    G. Raja, Y . Manaswini, G. D. Vivekanandan, H. Sampath, K. Dev, and A. K. Bashir, “AI-Powered Blockchain - A Decentralized Secure Multiparty Computation Protocol for IoV,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops, Jul. 2020, pp. 865–870

    2020

  50. [50]

    Use of Homomorphic Encryption with GPS in Location Privacy,

    S. Gupta and G. Arora, “Use of Homomorphic Encryption with GPS in Location Privacy,”2019 4th International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Networks (ISCON), pp. 42–45, Nov. 2019

    2019

  51. [51]

    An Overview of Smart Contract: Architecture, Applications, and Future Trends,

    S. Wang, Y . Yuan, X. Wang, J. Li, R. Qin, and F.-Y . Wang, “An Overview of Smart Contract: Architecture, Applications, and Future Trends,” in 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Jun. 2018, pp. 108– 113

    2018

  52. [52]

    Tensorbay documentation,

    Graviti, “Tensorbay documentation,” https://tensorbay-python-sdk. graviti.com/en/v1.24.2/reference/api/geometry/polyline.html, 2021

    2021

  53. [53]

    Computing the fr ´echet distance between two polygonal curves,

    H. Alt and M. Godau, “Computing the fr ´echet distance between two polygonal curves,”International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, vol. 5, pp. 75–91, 1995. Yousef AlSaqabiis an Assistant Professor at Kuwait University. He received his PhD in Electrical Engi- neering from the University of Southern California in 2024. He received both his...

    1995