Privacy-Aware Distributed Mobility Choice Modelling over Blockchain

Bilal Farooq; David Lopez

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Privacy-Aware Distributed Mobility Choice Modelling over Blockchain

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Distributed blockchain framework estimates mode-choice models while personal raw data stays on devices.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept for distributed choice model estimation, but the privacy claim is undercut by the authors' own honest-but-curious chief admission and the dSA code has a deterministic-step bug. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03446 v2 pith:URFQQA5P submitted 2019-08-09 cs.CR econ.EM

David Lopez , Bilal Farooq This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRecon.EM

keywords distributedchoicemodellingblockchainsimulatedannealingmodeprivacymaximumlikelihoodsmartmobilitydata-market

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that discrete choice models, specifically a binary logit mode choice model, can be estimated in a distributed, privacy-preserving way when personal raw data never leaves participants' devices. It presents a distributed version of simulated annealing running over the Blockchain-based Smart Mobility Data-market (BSMD), where workers send only their local log-likelihood values to a chief node. The paper claims the estimated parameters match a centralized version of the same algorithm, making the procedure consistent and reproducible. If true, this provides a template for privacy-aware mobility modelling that avoids central data collection. However, the paper itself concedes that a chief node seeing decrypted evaluations might infer personal observations, which undermines the full privacy claim.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the separation between local evaluation and global aggregation. Each worker $w$ holds $N$ personal observations and computes its local log-likelihood $l_w(\vec{\beta}) = \sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln(y_{a,n}P(a_n;\vec{\beta}) + y_{tr,n}P(tr_n;\vec{\beta}))$ for the parameter vector sent by the chief; only this scalar travels over an encrypted peer-to-peer channel, while the blockchain records who sent what to whom, not the evaluation value. The chief sums the $l_w$'s into a global log-likelihood $l$ and applies the simulated annealing acceptance rule. This lets any optimisation algorithm that only needs the objective function value be distributed without moving raw data, provided workers can evaluate the function locally.

What would settle it

Give a chief node the decrypted local log-likelihoods from a single worker over the full sequence of parameter proposals, together with the model and the worker's data size, and test whether a maximum-likelihood or equation-solving attack recovers the worker's individual observations; recovery of even one observation falsifies the privacy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a binary logit mode choice model can be estimated in a distributed setting where each worker owns a subset of the observations and never shares them. The chief distributes candidate parameter vectors $\vec{\beta}$; each worker evaluates the log-likelihood contribution $l_w$ of its own observations and sends back only this scalar; the chief sums the values and runs a simulated annealing acceptance rule. The reported parameters ($\beta_a=0.3444$, $\beta_c=-0.0062$, $\beta_t=-0.0008$) match those obtained by running the same annealing procedure centrally, so the estimation is described as consistent and reproducible. The framework is positioned as a template for privacy-aware mobility modelling because the raw data stays on the participants' devices.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing privacy premise is that sending a worker's local log-likelihood value to the chief does not let the chief infer that worker's raw observations; the paper itself states this is doubtful for honest-but-curious chiefs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the framework is correct, mode choice models and other maximum-likelihood choice models can be estimated over data held by many private individuals without central data collection or central data storage.
Any estimation algorithm that only consumes objective-function values—not gradients or individual records—can be plugged into the same distributed pipeline, including nested or mixed logit specifications.
The measured latencies (under 0.05 s per message at workers, about 0.15 s at the chief) suggest the approach can run on ordinary mobile equipment, although the roughly 80 MB of messages per worker over 200,000 rounds makes unmetered networks a practical condition.
The blockchain ledger gives participants an auditable record of with whom and when information was shared, which supports accountability in case a node misuses data.
The paper's own conclusion implies that any real deployment must add noise or secure aggregation before the system is safe against a curious chief.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension is to apply the same local-evaluation/global-aggregation split to models whose log-likelihoods are additively separable over rows, such as survival models or generalized linear models; the architecture does not depend on the transport context.
The honest-but-curious chief attack is the decisive test for the privacy claim: if a chief can reconstruct any worker's observation from the sequence of decrypted likelihoods, the framework reduces to a data-market that still leaks through the objective function.
Because the dSA convergence rests on the same acceptance rule as centralized simulated annealing, the reproducibility claim would be strengthened by running multiple restarts from different seeds and reporting the distribution of final parameters rather than a single run.
The communication cost (about 80 MB per worker) comes from sending one parameter vector per annealing iteration; evaluating a batch of parameter candidates in one message would cut both latency and bandwidth, at the price of a slightly different annealing schedule.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my read on 1908.03446.

What's new: they take their own BSMD blockchain and show that a binary logit mode choice model can be estimated in a distributed way, with workers sending only scalar log-likelihoods and their raw data never leaving their devices. The case study runs a distributed simulated annealing over one chief and four Raspberry Pi workers on 246 observations and gets the same parameters as the centralized version. That reproducibility check is the paper's real content: it shows the plumbing works as a template. The github repo and setup instructions are a plus.

What's soft: the headline privacy claim does not survive contact with their own conclusion. They admit that an honest-but-curious chief can infer individual observations from the decrypted worker evaluations. The stress-test note is right, and it's worse than approximate: the chief controls the beta proposals, so it can query each worker's l_w at many points. The derivatives of l_w with respect to beta are empirical moments of that worker's (Delta c, Delta t, y) distribution, so a few hundred queries recover the worker's data to machine precision. So the architecture prevents casual data sharing but does not provide privacy against the standard adversary named in the paper. Also Algorithm 1 samples epsilon once, outside the annealing loop, so the proposal is a fixed step; the random walk is actually a deterministic drift. That's a bug, likely a typo, but it means the distributed algorithm is not doing what the text says. The consistency check compares dSA to the same centralized SA, not to a conventional MLE; the standard errors are reported without explanation of how they were computed. These do not sink the demonstration, but they cap its value.

Proportion: this is a proof-of-concept, and as such it's honest and useful. The limitation paragraph in the conclusions is a credit; they flag the chief-inference problem themselves. The paper doesn't overclaim convergence theory; it claims consistency in the narrow sense of matching the centralized run, and that holds.

Who should read it: people working on privacy-preserving travel data collection, and anyone curious about blockchain as a coordination layer for federated estimation. It's not a strong privacy contribution, but it's a concrete example worth knowing.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious reviewer can push them to fix the epsilon bug, add differential privacy or clearly reframe the privacy claim, and validate against a standard MLE. The idea deserves a round of revisions, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a distributed framework for estimating binary logit mode choice models over the BSMD blockchain, using a distributed version of simulated annealing (dSA). Workers compute local log-likelihood contributions on their private observations and send only scalar evaluation values to a chief node; a case study with 246 stated-preference observations, one chief, and four Raspberry Pi worker nodes reports parameter estimates and message latencies. The authors claim that the estimated model parameters are consistent and reproducible, and that the architecture keeps personal raw data private and transactions secure.

Significance. If the claims held, the paper would provide a useful template for privacy-preserving distributed estimation of discrete choice models, with a reproducible implementation on real hardware. The authors are transparent about several limitations, which is commendable. However, as presented, the central privacy claim is contradicted by the authors' own admission in the Conclusions, and the simulated annealing implementation contains a proposal-generation flaw that undermines the reported convergence result. The consistency claim is also supported only by an internal comparison with a centralized version of the same algorithm, not by an independent estimator. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claims, so substantial revision is needed.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Algorithm 1, lines 9 and 13] The proposal step is degenerate: epsilon is sampled once before the temperature loop (line 9) and then reused for every proposal (line 13), so beta_new is always beta plus the same constant vector. This is not a simulated annealing random walk with local proposals; the search reduces to a deterministic shift with random acceptance, and the reported convergence behavior does not demonstrate a working distributed SA. The epsilon must be resampled inside the inner loop.
[Section 6, Conclusions] The Conclusions state: 'Chief nodes knows the model and have access to the decrypted worker evaluations, hence if the chiefs are honest but curious (in the best case) they may be able to infer personal observations of workers by using the evaluations.' This admission directly contradicts the abstract's claim that transactions are 'secure and private' and the title's 'Privacy-Aware'. Because the chief controls the sequence of beta vectors and receives l_w(beta) for each, it can differentiate l_w with respect to beta and recover moments of each worker's empirical distribution of (Delta c, Delta t, y); in the limit of many queries, exact recovery of the underlying observations is possible. The privacy guarantee is therefore unsupported for the standard honest-but-curious adversary, and the architecture at best prevents direct raw-data sharing. The authors should either add a formal privacy mechanism (e.g., differential privacy) or explicitly re-scope the privacy claim to exclude honest-but-curious chiefs.
[Section 4.2 and Table 1] The verification consists solely of comparing the distributed algorithm with a non-distributed version of the same simulated annealing algorithm. This is an internal consistency check, not a validation against an independent estimator such as standard maximum likelihood software, and no multiple-run variability, random-seed analysis, or convergence diagnostic is reported. Consequently, the abstract's claim that the estimated parameters are 'consistent and reproducible' is not established. The authors should provide an external benchmark and repeated runs with different random seeds.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.1, System setup] The text says 'each RPI runs a script similar to Algorithm 1', but Algorithm 1 is the chief's algorithm; workers should run a script similar to Algorithm 2. Please correct this mismatch, which affects reproducibility.
[Abstract and Section 3] Please fix typographical errors: 'state preference' should be 'stated preference'; 'likehood' should be 'likelihood'; 'Canda' should be 'Canada'; 'massage' should be 'message'; and 'conversion' in Section 4.2 should be 'convergence'.
[Section 3, Distributed process] The Introduction states that 'all the information transactions are recorded on the blockchain', but Section 3 says that evaluation values of the objective function are not published in the ledger to avoid reverse-engineering. Please clarify which transactions are recorded and why the two statements are not contradictory.
[Table 1] The standard errors in Table 1 are presented without any explanation of how they were computed from the simulated annealing output. Please state the estimation procedure for these standard errors.
[Section 5, Discussion] The statement that an attacker 'could do is to only approximate the personal observations' is in tension with the stronger admission in the Conclusions that honest-but-curious chiefs 'may be able to infer personal observations of workers'. Please reconcile these two statements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Privacy-aware claim rests on authors' own BSMD framework and is later conceded to be breakable; parameter verification is an internal self-consistency check.

self citation load bearing [Abstract; Section 1 (Introduction), refs [8,9]; contradicted by Section 6 (Conclusions)]
"Participants use Blockchain based Smart Mobility Data-market (BSMD), where all transactions are secure and private. ... a multi-layered blockchain framework over the public closed Blockchain for Smart Mobility Data-market (BSMD) was developed by [8], where participants own and shares their mobility data while their privacy is preserved. The extensive details of the framework can be found in [9]."

The central premise 'privacy is preserved' is imported from two previous papers by the same authors ([8] Lopez & Farooq 2018; [9] Lopez & Farooq 2019) rather than established in the present paper. This is load-bearing: the title 'Privacy-Aware' and the abstract's 'all transactions are secure and private' depend on the BSMD privacy guarantee. The paper later concedes the guarantee fails for the most powerful node: 'Chief nodes knows the model and have access to the decrypted worker evaluations, hence if the chiefs are honest but curious (in the best case) they may be able to infer personal observations of workers by using the evaluations.' Thus the privacy conclusion reduces to an unverified self-citation, and the authors' own limitation statement directly undermines the imported premise.

full rationale

Aside from the BSMD privacy premise, the estimation chain is not circular: the log-likelihood objective (Eq. 1) is defined from the binary logit model, and the distributed simulated annealing (Algorithms 1-2) is a concrete optimization procedure that the authors implement and compare with a non-distributed version. That comparison is a self-consistency check rather than a fit-to-the-claim, so the parameter estimates are not forced by the definition of the claim. The weakness is load-bearing: the paper's advertised privacy property is assumed from the authors' prior BSMD papers, and the conclusion explicitly concedes honest-but-curious chiefs can infer individual observations from decrypted worker evaluations. This is primarily a correctness/privacy risk rather than a derivation-equivalent-to-input circularity, but because the central 'privacy-aware' claim is carried by a self-citation that the paper itself undermines, a score of 4 is proportionate. The internal consistency of the distributed and centralized simulated-annealing runs is not circular, as it checks implementation fidelity rather than reusing the same fitted values as the target claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration depends on a standard statistical model, a specific survey dataset, and the authors' own blockchain framework. The main ad hoc assumption is the unproven convergence of the distributed simulated annealing and the privacy claim.

free parameters (5)

Initial temperature = 1
Annealing schedule start temperature, chosen by hand in Algorithm 1 line 6.
Minimum temperature = 0.00001
Termination threshold for annealing, chosen by hand in Algorithm 1 line 7.
Cooling factor alpha = 0.9
Exponential cooling rate, chosen by hand in Algorithm 1 line 8.
Proposal step size epsilon = rand(-0.01, 0.01)
Step size for parameter proposals; sampled once in Algorithm 1 line 9, which is likely a bug because it is not re-sampled each iteration.
Inner iterations = 1000
Number of proposals per temperature level, chosen in Algorithm 1 line 12.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Binary logit model with linear utility (Equation 4) is the correct specification for the mode choice data.
The model form is asserted without testing alternatives; it is the basis for the likelihood in Equation 1.
domain assumption The SP survey data and the 246 observation subset are valid and representative.
Data from [21] is used without any preprocessing or representativeness analysis.
domain assumption The BSMD framework (refs [8,9]) provides secure, private transactions as described.
The paper relies on the security properties of its own prior BSMD work without providing new proofs.
ad hoc to paper Distributed simulated annealing converges to the global optimum of the log-likelihood.
No convergence proof is given; the paper only compares dSA to non-distributed SA on one dataset.
domain assumption Peer-to-peer encrypted channels and blockchain consensus prevent external attackers from reading evaluations.
Security is taken as given from the blockchain and encryption design.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Privacy-Aware Distributed Mobility Choice Modelling over Blockchain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URFQQA5P

@misc{pith2026190803446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Privacy-Aware Distributed Mobility Choice Modelling over Blockchain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URFQQA5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03446}
}

read the original abstract

A generalized distributed tool for mobility choice modelling is presented, where participants do not share personal raw data, while all computations are done locally. Participants use Blockchain based Smart Mobility Data-market (BSMD), where all transactions are secure and private. Nodes in blockchain can transact information with other participants as long as both parties agree to the transaction rules issued by the owner of the data. A case study is presented where a mode choice model is distributed and estimated over BSMD. As an example, the parameter estimation problem is solved on a distributed version of simulated annealing. It is demonstrated that the estimated model parameters are consistent and reproducible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03446 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Ubiquitous monitoring of pedestrian dynamics: Exploring wireless ad hoc network of multi-sensor technologies

Bilal Farooq, Alexandra Beaulieu, Marwan Ragab, and Viet Dang Ba. Ubiquitous monitoring of pedestrian dynamics: Exploring wireless ad hoc network of multi-sensor technologies. In 2015 IEEE SENSORS, pages 1–4. IEEE, nov 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Revealed: 50 million facebook proﬁles harvested for cambridge analytica in major data breach

Carole Cadwalladr and Emma Graham-Harrison. Revealed: 50 million facebook proﬁles harvested for cambridge analytica in major data breach. Guardian News and Media Limited , 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential

Wullianallur Raghupathi and Viju Raghupathi. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Information Science and Systems , 2(1):3, dec 2014

work page 2014
[4]

A perspective on the challenges and opportunities for privacy-aware big transportation data

Godwin Badu-Marfo, Bilal Farooq, and Zachary Patterson. A perspective on the challenges and opportunities for privacy-aware big transportation data. Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation , 1(1):1–23, Jun 2019

work page 2019
[5]

Amalina, I

F. Amalina, I. A. T. Hashem, Z. H. Azizul, A. T. Fong, A. Firdaus, M. Imran, and N. B. Anuar. Blending big data analytics: Review on challenges and a recent study. IEEE Access, pages 1–1, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Technical report, Bitcoin, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

L. M. Bach, B. Mihaljevic, and M. Zagar. Comparative analysis of blockchain consensus algorithms. In 2018 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pages 1545–1550, May 2018

work page 2018
[8]

A blockchain framework for smart mobility

David Lopez and Bilal Farooq. A blockchain framework for smart mobility. In 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), pages 1–7, Kansas City, Missouri, sep 2018. IEEE

work page 2018

Show all 24 references

[9]

A multi-layered blockchain framework for smart mobility data-markets

David Lopez and Bilal Farooq. A multi-layered blockchain framework for smart mobility data-markets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06435, 2019

1906 arXiv
[10]

Olshavsky

Richard Barff, David Mackay, and Richard W. Olshavsky. A Selective Review of Travel-Mode Choice Models. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4):370–380, 03 1982

1982
[11]

A comparative study of machine learning classiﬁers for modeling travel mode choice

Julian Hagenauer and Marco Helbich. A comparative study of machine learning classiﬁers for modeling travel mode choice. Expert Systems with Applications , 78:273–282, jul 2017

2017
[12]

Determinants of sustainable mode choice in differ- ent socio-cultural contexts: A comparison of rome and san francisco

Samira Ramezani, Barbara Pizzo, and Elizabeth Deakin. Determinants of sustainable mode choice in differ- ent socio-cultural contexts: A comparison of rome and san francisco. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(9):648–664, 2018

2018
[13]

The conditional effects of social inﬂuence in transportation mode choice

Susan Pike and Mark Lubell. The conditional effects of social inﬂuence in transportation mode choice. Research in Transportation Economics, 68:2–10, August 2018

2018
[14]

Mahmassani

Hooram Halat, Meead Saberi, Charlotte Anne Frei, Andreas Rolf Frei, and Hani S. Mahmassani. Impact of crime statistics on travel mode choice: Case study of the city of chicago, illinois. Transportation Research Record, 2537(1):81–87, 2015

2015
[15]

Renovating blockchain with distributed databases: An open source system

Muhammad Muzammal, Qiang Qu, and Bulat Nasrulin. Renovating blockchain with distributed databases: An open source system. Future Generation Computer Systems, 90:105 – 117, 2019

2019
[16]

M. Li, J. Weng, A. Yang, W. Lu, Y . Zhang, L. Hou, J. Liu, Y . Xiang, and R. H. Deng. Crowdbc: A blockchain- based decentralized framework for crowdsourcing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , 30(6):1251–1266, June 2019

2019
[17]

A. Stanciu. Blockchain based distributed control system for edge computing. In 2017 21st International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science (CSCS) , pages 667–671, May 2017

2017
[18]

Blockchain based decentralized management of demand response programs in smart energy grids

Claudia Pop, Tudor Cioara, Marcel Antal, Ionut Anghel, Ioan Salomie, and Massimo Bertoncini. Blockchain based decentralized management of demand response programs in smart energy grids. Sensors, 18(1), 2018

2018
[19]

Federated machine learning: Concept and applications

Qiang Yang, Yang Liu, Tianjian Chen, and Yongxin Tong. Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 10(2):12:1–12:19, January 2019

2019
[20]

Blockchain in government: Beneﬁts and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing

Svein Ølnes, Jolien Ubacht, and Marijn Janssen. Blockchain in government: Beneﬁts and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3):355–364, sep 2017

2017
[21]

Innovative intercity transport mode: Application of choice preference integrated with attributes nonattendance and value learning

Anae Sobhani and Bilal Farooq. Innovative intercity transport mode: Application of choice preference integrated with attributes nonattendance and value learning. In 21st International Federation of Operational Research Societies, Québéc City, Québéc, 2017

2017
[22]

A course in simulation

Sheldon M Ross. A course in simulation . Prentice Hall PTR, 1990. 8 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 13, 2019

1990
[23]

Federated learning: Collaborative machine learning without centralized training data, 2017

Google AI. Federated learning: Collaborative machine learning without centralized training data, 2017

2017
[24]

Modelling Latent Travel Behaviour Characteristics with Generative Machine Learning

Melvin Wong and Bilal Farooq. Modelling Latent Travel Behaviour Characteristics with Generative Machine Learning. In IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, volume 2018-November, pages 749–754. IEEE, nov 2018. 9

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ubiquitous monitoring of pedestrian dynamics: Exploring wireless ad hoc network of multi-sensor technologies

Bilal Farooq, Alexandra Beaulieu, Marwan Ragab, and Viet Dang Ba. Ubiquitous monitoring of pedestrian dynamics: Exploring wireless ad hoc network of multi-sensor technologies. In 2015 IEEE SENSORS, pages 1–4. IEEE, nov 2015

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Revealed: 50 million facebook proﬁles harvested for cambridge analytica in major data breach

Carole Cadwalladr and Emma Graham-Harrison. Revealed: 50 million facebook proﬁles harvested for cambridge analytica in major data breach. Guardian News and Media Limited , 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential

Wullianallur Raghupathi and Viju Raghupathi. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Information Science and Systems , 2(1):3, dec 2014

work page 2014

[4] [4]

A perspective on the challenges and opportunities for privacy-aware big transportation data

Godwin Badu-Marfo, Bilal Farooq, and Zachary Patterson. A perspective on the challenges and opportunities for privacy-aware big transportation data. Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation , 1(1):1–23, Jun 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Amalina, I

F. Amalina, I. A. T. Hashem, Z. H. Azizul, A. T. Fong, A. Firdaus, M. Imran, and N. B. Anuar. Blending big data analytics: Review on challenges and a recent study. IEEE Access, pages 1–1, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Technical report, Bitcoin, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

L. M. Bach, B. Mihaljevic, and M. Zagar. Comparative analysis of blockchain consensus algorithms. In 2018 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pages 1545–1550, May 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

A blockchain framework for smart mobility

David Lopez and Bilal Farooq. A blockchain framework for smart mobility. In 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), pages 1–7, Kansas City, Missouri, sep 2018. IEEE

work page 2018