Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Blockchain-based Crowdsourced Deep Reinforcement Learning as a Service

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a blockchain-based crowdsourcing framework that treats deep reinforcement learning as a service, letting requesters hire expert workers for DRL training and for sharing pre-trained models.

desk verdict New service model worth taking seriously, but the experiments are component demos, not an end-to-end proof of efficacy. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16369 v1 pith:5KS4NUD4 submitted 2025-01-22 cs.LG cs.AI

Ahmed Alagha , Hadi Otrok , Shakti Singh , Rabeb Mizouni , Jamal Bentahar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords deepreinforcementlearningcrowdsourcingblockchainmachineasaservicesmartcontractsworkerrecruitmentqualityofmodelsharing
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

The paper is trying to establish that deep reinforcement learning can be offered as a crowdsourced service rather than only through centralized MLaaS platforms. It proposes a consortium-blockchain framework where requesters submit DRL training tasks or model-sharing requests, smart contracts recruit workers using quality-of-service scores, and trained models are stored on IPFS. The authors argue that existing MLaaS is ill-suited to DRL because of its computational cost, environment variability, and need for expert design, and they report experiments on three multi-agent DRL applications showing that their recruitment metrics select workers whose resources speed up training and whose shared models improve learning. If the framework works as described, it would broaden access to DRL expertise and compute.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the QoS-driven greedy knapsack allocation executed by smart contracts. For DRL training, each worker's QoS is $\text{Exp} \times \text{Rep} \times R \times CC$, where $CC = \frac{2}{\pi} \tan^{-1}(w_1 N_{\text{CPU}})$ captures the saturating benefit of parallel CPU cores; the requester's constraints filter workers by reputation, rating, domain, CPU, RAM, and accepted GPU series. For model sharing, QoS is $\frac{\text{Exp} \times \text{Rep} \times R}{1 + S}$, where $S$ is a weighted sum of absolute differences between environment attributes of the shared model and the task. Three smart contracts, named Users Manager, Tasks Manager, and Models Manager, store worker, task, and model records on-chain and use IPFS content identifiers for model files; allocation functions sort candidates greedily at $O(N \log N)$, a complexity chosen for blockchain deployability.

What would settle it

Let workers register with inflated hardware and model-environment claims, run the greedy allocation, and audit the actual resources and model metadata; if misreporting workers are selected and then fail to train or share usable models at the promised speed, the central claim that QoS metrics pick effective workers would be falsified. A cleaner test is to compare training outcomes and wall time for identical tasks allocated with truthful versus inflated profiles, holding everything else fixed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a consortium blockchain can autonomously manage the full lifecycle of crowdsourced DRL: user registration, task submission, QoS-based worker selection, model delivery via IPFS, feedback, and payment. The training-task QoS is the product of normalized expertise, reputation, rating, and a computational-capability score that saturates with CPU count and checks GPU and RAM thresholds; the model-sharing QoS divides the same human-factor product by one plus a weighted environment-similarity distance. The evaluation reports that more CPU cores mainly reduce wall-clock training time, GPU use increases training steps by up to 19 times, and expert models from closer environments improve convergence, while greedy recruitment beats genetic, particle-swarm, and ant-colony benchmarks on group QoS and is far faster, and smart-contract gas costs are modest.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes workers truthfully report their CPU cores, RAM, GPU series, and the environment attributes of their shared models, and that these self-declared values feed the QoS scores; there is no verification, benchmark, or proof-of-computation described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A requester with no DRL expertise can submit a problem description and receive a trained model from a recruited expert worker, with payments and records handled automatically by smart contracts.
  • Workers with more CPU cores and GPUs receive higher QoS scores, and the experiments show these resources mainly compress wall-clock training time rather than change convergence behavior.
  • Model sharing with environment-similar pre-trained models speeds learning; the closer the shared model's environment attributes are to the requester's, the faster the convergence.
  • Greedy recruitment yields higher group-average QoS and is orders of magnitude faster than genetic, particle-swarm, and ant-colony benchmarks, making on-chain allocation practical.
  • Smart-contract gas costs are low enough to deploy on a consortium blockchain, which avoids single-point-of-failure and provides traceable, autonomous task execution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An unstated corollary is that the framework's integrity depends on a reputation and verification layer that the paper does not design; without one, workers can inflate their reported hardware or model attributes to win tasks.
  • The environment-similarity metric assumes that a fixed, weighted set of environment attributes can represent any DRL domain, which may be difficult to generalize beyond the three tested applications.
  • The framework could be extended to include on-chain quality verification of submitted models, such as benchmark reward checks, but the paper leaves that to future work.
  • A testable extension would be to simulate strategic workers who misreport capabilities and measure the resulting degradation in training outcomes, which would reveal how much of the claimed efficacy relies on honest reporting.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a consortium-blockchain-based crowdsourced Deep Reinforcement Learning as a Service (DRLaaS) framework that supports two task types: DRL training and model sharing. It defines QoS metrics for worker recruitment (Eqs. 5-8), uses a greedy optimization for worker and model allocation, describes three smart contracts (UMC, TMC, MMC) with IPFS-based model storage, and reports experiments on CPU/GPU effects, model similarity in demonstration cloning, recruitment optimization on a synthetic 600-worker dataset, and smart-contract gas costs. The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that the framework provides effective DRL training and model sharing services and that its efficacy is proven by the experiments.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: making DRL accessible through crowdsourced expertise, computational resources, and pre-trained models. Its main contributions are a concrete system architecture for DRLaaS, DRL-specific worker recruitment metrics, and a smart-contract design for task/model allocation. The component-level experiments on three multi-agent DRL environments (target localization, maze cleaning, fleet coordination) usefully demonstrate that CPU parallelism and GPU availability affect DRL training throughput and that similar pre-trained models can help demonstration cloning. The gas-cost analysis gives a rough feasibility check for the smart contracts. However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of an integrated evaluation of the proposed service loop and by unverified assumptions about truthful worker reporting and the functional forms of the QoS metrics.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The evaluation does not exercise the proposed DRLaaS framework as an integrated service. The full loop of requester task submission, smart-contract-based allocation, actual worker training or model sharing, IPFS-based model return, payment, and rating is never run; the smart contracts appear only as gas-cost estimates in Table 5 and are not deployed or executed on a ledger. Consequently, the abstract's statement that the framework 'is tested on several DRL applications, proving its efficacy' is not supported by the presented evidence, which validates components in isolation rather than the system-level service claim.
  2. [Section 4.2.1 and Section 5.2.1] The validation of the computational-capability component is partly tautological. The QoS in Eq. (6) includes CCWj from Eq. (5), which is built on the number of CPU cores, and the task constraints in Section 4.2.1 include GPU availability; Figs. 6 and 7 then show that more CPU cores and the presence of a GPU speed up DRL training. This confirms that these attributes are relevant, but it does not validate the specific functional form of Eq. (5) or the multiplicative combination in Eq. (6). A simple hardware filter would likely produce the same training-speed differences, so the experiments do not show that the QoS metric selects better workers beyond what such a filter would achieve.
  3. [Sections 4.4-4.5, Tables 2-4] The framework's correctness depends on workers truthfully reporting their computational capabilities (CPU cores, RAM, GPU series) and model environment details, but no verification mechanism, benchmark, or proof-of-computation is described. If workers misreport these attributes, the greedy allocation in Section 4.3 selects the wrong workers and the QoS values become meaningless. The conclusion mentions future quality-control mechanisms, but the current design does not mitigate this dependency, which is load-bearing for the claim that the service is effective.
  4. [Section 5.2.2 and Eq. (7)] The model similarity metric is not actually validated as a ranking function. Figure 8 compares a few hand-picked expert models by their environment labels (e.g., 2A2W vs 3A3W), showing qualitatively that closer environments help; however, the paper never computes S(m,Ti) for these models, never varies the weights wn in Eq. (7), and never tests whether the top-ranked models under Eq. (7) yield better training outcomes. The model-sharing allocation process is therefore unsubstantiated.
  5. [Section 5.2.3, Figs. 9-10] The comparison against GA, PSO, and ACO on a synthetic 600-worker dataset provides weak evidence for the recruitment method. When the objective is the additive sum of worker QoS values, selecting a group of size N is achieved exactly by greedy top-k selection, so it is unsurprising that greedy outperforms general-purpose metaheuristics on that objective. Moreover, in Fig. 10b the 'workers' are simulated by running training on hardware with the declared attributes of selected workers; no actual worker accepts a task, trains a model, or uploads it, so the experiment does not demonstrate distributed crowdsourced training.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The notation for worker attributes is inconsistent: the text uses subscripts such as DomTi in Rep Wj Tr-DomTi while Table 1 defines DomTi as the task domain, and the worker tuple mixes DomWj and DomTj; please unify the notation.
  2. [Section 4.2.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The commitment rate CM and completion rate CP are undefined when the total assigned tasks or accepted tasks are zero; initial values for new workers should be specified explicitly.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption contains a typo: the second subfigure is labeled '(a) varying the use of GPU' but should be '(b)'.
  4. [Section 4.2.2, Eq. (7)] The environment attributes Fn in Eq. (7) appear to be raw counts (e.g., number of agents, number of walls), so the weighted sum of absolute differences is scale-dependent; the paper should discuss normalization before summing attributes of different units or magnitudes.
  5. [Section 5.2.4, Table 5] The table entry 'updateInfo)' has a typo and should read 'updateInfo()'; also, the discussion would benefit from stating whether the gas costs are estimates obtained from a simulator or from a deployed contract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QoS metrics are design heuristics with independent outcome-based checks; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that its blockchain-based DRLaaS framework provides effective DRL training and model-sharing services. The QoS for training tasks (Eq. 6) is a product of expertise, reputation, rating, and a computational-capability term (Eq. 5) defined as a monotone transform of the worker's CPU-core count, with GPU and RAM constraints. Section 5.2.1 then measures how CPU-core count and GPU availability affect DRL training speed and convergence. This is an empirical sanity check of the metric's premise, not a circular prediction: no constants are fitted to the validation data, and the w1 parameter in Eq. 5 is a design choice rather than an estimate obtained from Figs. 6-7. The model-similarity metric (Eq. 7) is validated independently in Fig. 8, where environment attributes are varied and transfer benefit is measured by episode length, which is not part of the metric itself. Fig. 10a does compare the proposed QoS against benchmarks on the same QoS objective, which is somewhat tautological since the proposed metric contains additional components by construction, but Fig. 10b supplies an external outcome-based check by training the selected workers' configurations and measuring episode length, an outcome not contained in the QoS formula. The smart-contract evaluation is a gas-cost complexity analysis, not a derivation of service quality. Self-citations such as [17], [34], and [38] provide environment implementations and the demonstration-cloning method, but they are not used to assert uniqueness, to forbid alternatives, or to import an unverified load-bearing premise into the recruitment derivation. The abstract's claim that the framework 'is tested on several DRL applications, proving its efficacy' is broader than the component-level evidence, but that is an evidentiary/support issue, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or postulated entities are introduced. The smart contracts and framework components are designed software artifacts, not new forces, particles, or dimensions. The main unstated inputs are the free parameters in the QoS formulas and several domain assumptions about how DRL tasks can be outsourced and how environment similarity should be measured.

free parameters (2)
  • w1
    Weight in Eq. 5 controlling the stretch of the arctan mapping for CPU cores. No value or tuning procedure is reported, yet it directly changes the computational capability score.
  • wn
    Weights for environment attributes in the model similarity metric, Eq. 7. The paper states that some attributes might have more importance but does not specify how these weights are chosen or learned.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DRL environments in the same domain share a pre-defined set of numeric attributes, and a weighted L1 distance between attribute vectors predicts transfer usefulness.
    Invoked in Eq. 7 and the model sharing QoS metric. No evidence is given that such attributes exist or that L1 distance is a valid similarity measure.
  • domain assumption The worker recruitment problem can be modeled as a knapsack with independent worker QoS values, so greedy top-k selection is appropriate.
    Section 4.3 treats recruitment as a knapsack maximization. This ignores interactions among recruited workers, and validation in Fig. 9 uses a synthetic dataset that assumes independence.
  • domain assumption A worker can take a textual problem description and successfully design and train a DRL solution without any additional validation.
    Section 4.2.1 describes DRL training tasks as requiring environment design, reward engineering, and policy optimization, but the experiments are run by the authors, not by recruited workers, so this capability is never empirically demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Computational capability saturates with the number of CPU cores and is adequately modeled by a scaled arctan function.
    Eq. 5 uses a particular functional form with no derivation or comparison to other saturating functions. The saturation claim is plausible but not grounded in measured data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blockchain-based Crowdsourced Deep Reinforcement Learning as a Service." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KS4NUD4

@misc{pith2026250116369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blockchain-based Crowdsourced Deep Reinforcement Learning as a Service},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KS4NUD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16369}
}
read the original abstract

Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for solving complex problems. However, its full potential remains inaccessible to a broader audience due to its complexity, which requires expertise in training and designing DRL solutions, high computational capabilities, and sometimes access to pre-trained models. This necessitates the need for hassle-free services that increase the availability of DRL solutions to a variety of users. To enhance the accessibility to DRL services, this paper proposes a novel blockchain-based crowdsourced DRL as a Service (DRLaaS) framework. The framework provides DRL-related services to users, covering two types of tasks: DRL training and model sharing. Through crowdsourcing, users could benefit from the expertise and computational capabilities of workers to train DRL solutions. Model sharing could help users gain access to pre-trained models, shared by workers in return for incentives, which can help train new DRL solutions using methods in knowledge transfer. The DRLaaS framework is built on top of a Consortium Blockchain to enable traceable and autonomous execution. Smart Contracts are designed to manage worker and model allocation, which are stored using the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) to ensure tamper-proof data distribution. The framework is tested on several DRL applications, proving its efficacy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16369 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A general overview of the proposed framework. The proposed framework is evaluated for several complex DRL applications, in￾cluding Target Localization [17], Autonomous Vehicles Fleet Coordination [20], and Multi-Agent Maze Cleaning [21]. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews recent work in MLaaS and crowdsourcing for ML. Section 3 gives background about DRL and highlights the importa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed Blockchain-assisted DRLaaS framework. The different steps could involve a single entity, or an interaction between two entities. Entities include requesters, workers, the blockchain, and IPFS. 4.1. Problem Formulation Each task type, i.e. DRL training and model sharing, has its own requirements and recruitment metrics to be used when selecting workers. Generally, given a set of tasks T = {T1, T2, T3, ..… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flowchart of the recruitment optimization process. 4.4. Smart Contracts Implementation In this work, the crowdsourcing platform is built on top of a Consortium Blockchain. The blockchain is responsible for managing users’ registration, task requests, task al￾location, and feedback through smart contracts. A blockchain is used instead of a cen￾tralized management system to provide a decentralized, transparent, and au… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The interactions between the users and smart contracts as part of the proposed framework. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Use-case scenarios of the DRL application environments used to validate the proposed methods. These environments are examples of complex DRL problems that require expertise and computational resources. In the following sections, the proposed methods will be validated u…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The effect of parallelizing the DRL process over a varying number of CPU cores on the learning convergence, for different DRL environments. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The total number of training steps in a 12h duration, while (a) varying the number of CPU cores (parallelized DRL) and (a) varying the use of GPU. 5.2.2. DRL Model Sharing To study the importance of the similarity metric proposed in Eq. 7 for the DRL model sharing task…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The effect of model similarity on the learning performance, when training a 3-agent 3-wall target lo￾calization problem (3A3W), a 5-agent maze cleaning environment, and a 3-agent 10-target fleet coordination problem (3A10T). 5.2.3. Recruitment Optimization To validate …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the proposed greedy-based recruitment and the benchmarks for different group sizes. To analyze the effect of the recruited workers on the QoS and the DRL training results, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the proposed method and different benchmarks in terms of (a) QoS for different group sizes and (b) DRL training results for a group size of 4, using the maze cleaning environment. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shurrab, R

    M. Shurrab, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, H. Otrok, Reinforcement learning framework for uav-based target localization applications, Internet of Things (2023) 100867

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Antonio, C

    G.-P. Antonio, C. Maria-Dolores, Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning to manage connected autonomous vehicles at tomorrow’s intersections, IEEE Trans- actions on Vehicular Technology 71 (2022) 7033–7043

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Berner, et al., Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06680 (2019)

    C. Berner, et al., Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06680 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Li, Deep reinforcement learning: An overview, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07274 (2017)

    Y . Li, Deep reinforcement learning: An overview, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07274 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Gronauer, K

    S. Gronauer, K. Diepold, Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning: a survey, Artificial Intelligence Review (2022) 1–49. 30

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Q. Wang, W. Ma, W. Wang, B-lnn: Inference-time linear model for secure neural network inference, Information Sciences 638 (2023) 118966

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Z. Pan, J. Zeng, R. Cheng, H. Yan, J. Li, Pnas: A privacy preserving framework for neural architecture search services, Information Sciences 573 (2021) 370– 381

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Ribeiro, K

    M. Ribeiro, K. Grolinger, M. A. Capretz, Mlaas: Machine learning as a service, in: 2015 IEEE 14th international conference on machine learning and applica- tions (ICMLA), IEEE, pp. 896–902

    work page 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    M. Aly, K. H. Rahouma, S. M. Ramzy, Pay attention to the speech: Covid- 19 diagnosis using machine learning and crowdsourced respiratory and speech recordings, Alexandria Engineering Journal 61 (2022) 3487–3500

    2022

  2. [10]

    Y . Dong, L. Jiang, C. Li, Improving data and model quality in crowdsourcing using co-training-based noise correction, Information Sciences 583 (2022) 174– 188

    2022

  3. [11]

    Washington, E

    P. Washington, E. Leblanc, K. Dunlap, Y . Penev, A. Kline, K. Paskov, M. W. Sun, B. Chrisman, N. Stockham, M. Varma, et al., Precision telemedicine through crowdsourced machine learning: testing variability of crowd workers for video- based autism feature recognition, Journal ...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Zhang, L

    Y . Zhang, L. Jiang, C. Li, Instance redistribution-based label integration for crowdsourcing, Information Sciences 674 (2024) 120702

    2024

  5. [13]

    Mart ´ın-Morat´o, A

    I. Mart ´ın-Morat´o, A. Mesaros, Strong labeling of sound events using crowd- sourced weak labels and annotator competence estimation, IEEE /ACM Transac- tions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 31 (2023) 902–914

    2023

  6. [14]

    Elsokkary, H

    N. Elsokkary, H. Otrok, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, H. Barada, M. Omar, Crowd- sourced last mile delivery: Collaborative workforce assignment, Internet of Things 22 (2023) 100692

    2023

  7. [15]

    Alagha, S

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, RFLS-resilient fault-proof localiza- tion system in IoT and crowd-based sensing applications, Journal of Network and Computer Applications 170 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Liang, W

    D. Liang, W. Cao, Z. Xu, M. Wang, A novel approach of two-stage three-way co-opetition decision for crowdsourcing task allocation scheme, Information Sci- ences 559 (2021) 191–211

    2021

  9. [17]

    Alagha, S

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, J. Bentahar, H. Otrok, Target localization us- ing multi-agent deep reinforcement learning with proximal policy optimization, Future Generation Computer Systems 136 (2022) 342–357

    2022

  10. [18]

    Nair, et al., Overcoming exploration in reinforcement learning with demon- strations, in: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp

    A. Nair, et al., Overcoming exploration in reinforcement learning with demon- strations, in: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 6292–6299. 31

    2018

  11. [19]

    Kadadha, S

    M. Kadadha, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, H. Otrok, A context-aware blockchain-based crowdsourcing framework: Open challenges and opportunities, IEEE Access (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Xidias, P

    E. Xidias, P. Zacharia, A. Nearchou, Path planning and scheduling for a fleet of autonomous vehicles, Robotica 34 (2016) 2257–2273

    2016

  13. [21]

    Jiang, C

    S. Jiang, C. Amato, Multi-agent reinforcement learning with directed exploration and selective memory reuse, in: Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, pp. 777–784

  14. [22]

    S. Zhao, M. Talasila, G. Jacobson, C. Borcea, S. A. Aftab, J. F. Murray, Pack- aging and sharing machine learning models via the acumos ai open platform, in: 2018 17th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), IEEE, pp. 841–846

    2018

  15. [23]

    Kumar, R

    A. Kumar, R. Tourani, M. Vij, S. Srikanteswara, Sclera: A framework for privacy- preserving mlaas at the pervasive edge, in: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops and other A ffiliated Events (PerCom Workshops), IEEE, pp. 175–180

    2022

  16. [24]

    Singh, J

    S. Singh, J. Thaliath, I. F. Siddiqui, A. Jain, S. Yoon, M. Attique, N. M. F. Qureshi, Machine learning as a service for beyond 5g networks, in: 2022 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), IEEE, pp. 455–460

    2022

  17. [25]

    Graur, D

    D. Graur, D. Aymon, D. Kluser, T. Albrici, C. A. Thekkath, A. Klimovic, Cachew: Machine learning input data processing as a service, in: 2022 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 22), pp. 689–706

    2022

  18. [26]

    Abououf, H

    M. Abououf, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, E. Damiani, How artificial intelli- gence and mobile crowd sourcing are inextricably intertwined, IEEE Network 35 (2020) 252–258

    2020

  19. [27]

    Y . Ren, W. Liu, A. Liu, T. Wang, A. Li, A privacy-protected intelligent crowd- sourcing application of iot based on the reinforcement learning, Future generation computer systems 127 (2022) 56–69

    2022

  20. [28]

    Abououf, S

    M. Abououf, S. Singh, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, E. Damiani, Machine learning in mobile crowd sourcing: A behavior-based recruitment model, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 22 (2021) 1–28

    2021

  21. [29]

    Puttinaovarat, P

    S. Puttinaovarat, P. Horkaew, Flood forecasting system based on integrated big and crowdsource data by using machine learning techniques, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 5885–5905

    2020

  22. [30]

    J. C. Chang, S. Amershi, E. Kamar, Revolt: Collaborative crowdsourcing for labeling machine learning datasets, in: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2334–2346. 32

    2017

  23. [31]

    R. S. Sutton, A. G. Barto, Reinforcement learning: An introduction, MIT press, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    H. Sami, H. Otrok, J. Bentahar, A. Mourad, E. Damiani, Reward shaping using convolutional neural network, Information Sciences 648 (2023) 119481

    2023

  25. [33]

    H. Sami, J. Bentahar, A. Mourad, H. Otrok, E. Damiani, Graph convolutional recurrent networks for reward shaping in reinforcement learning, Information Sciences 608 (2022) 63–80

    2022

  26. [34]

    Alagha, R

    A. Alagha, R. Mizouni, J. Bentahar, H. Otrok, S. Singh, Multi-agent deep re- inforcement learning with demonstration cloning for target localization, IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Damani, Z

    M. Damani, Z. Luo, E. Wenzel, G. Sartoretti, Primal 2: Pathfinding via reinforce- ment and imitation multi-agent learning-lifelong, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6 (2021) 2666–2673

    2021

  28. [36]

    Alagha, R

    A. Alagha, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, H. Otrok, A. Ouali, SDRS: A stable data- based recruitment system in IoT crowdsensing for localization tasks, Journal of Network and Computer Applications 177 (2021) 102968

    2021

  29. [37]

    Kadadha, H

    M. Kadadha, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, S. Singh, A. Ouali, On-chain behavior predic- tion machine learning model for blockchain-based crowdsourcing, Future Gener- ation Computer Systems 136 (2022) 170–181

    2022

  30. [38]

    Alagha, J

    A. Alagha, J. Bentahar, H. Otrok, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, Blockchain-assisted demonstration cloning for multi-agent deep reinforcement learning, IEEE Inter- net of Things Journal (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Alagha, S

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, H. Otrok, R. Mizouni, Influence-and interest-based worker recruitment in crowdsourcing using online social networks, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    H. Sami, R. Mizouni, H. Otrok, S. Singh, J. Bentahar, A. Mourad, Learnchain: Transparent and cooperative reinforcement learning on blockchain, Future Gen- eration Computer Systems 150 (2024) 255–271

    2024

  33. [41]

    Benet, Ipfs-content addressed, versioned, p2p file system, arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561 (2014)

    J. Benet, Ipfs-content addressed, versioned, p2p file system, arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alagha, S

    A. Alagha, S. Singh, R. Mizouni, A. Ouali, H. Otrok, Data-driven dynamic active node selection for event localization in IoT applications-a case study of radiation localization, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 16168–16183

    2019

  35. [43]

    Y . Wang, Y . Gao, Y . Li, X. Tong, A worker-selection incentive mechanism for optimizing platform-centric mobile crowdsourcing systems, Computer Networks 171 (2020) 107144. 33

    2020

  36. [44]

    Y . Wang, C. Zhao, S. Xu, Method for spatial crowdsourcing task assignment based on integrating of genetic algorithm and ant colony optimization, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 68311–68319

    2020

  37. [45]

    Wehbi, S

    O. Wehbi, S. Arisdakessian, O. A. Wahab, H. Otrok, S. Otoum, A. Mourad, M. Guizani, Fedmint: Intelligent bilateral client selection in federated learning with newcomer iot devices, IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Chahoud, H

    M. Chahoud, H. Sami, A. Mourad, S. Otoum, H. Otrok, J. Bentahar, M. Guizani, On-demand-fl: A dynamic and e fficient multi-criteria federated learning client deployment scheme, IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2023). 34

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.