Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 692–711 | Cite as

An incentive game based evolutionary model for crowd sensing networks

  • Xiao Liu
  • Kaoru Ota
  • Anfeng LiuEmail author
  • Zhigang Chen


Crowd sensing networks can be used for large scale sensing of the physical world or other information service by leveraging the available sensors on the phones. The collector hopes to collect as much as sensed data at relatively low cost. However, the sensing participants want to earn much money at low cost. This paper examines the evolutionary process among participants sensing networks and proposes an evolutionary game model to depict collaborative game phenomenon in the crowd sensing networks based on the principles of game theory in economics. A effectively incentive mechanism is established through corrected the penalty function of the game model accordance with the cooperation rates of the participant, and corrected the game times in accordance with it’s payoff. The collector controls the process of game by adjusting the price function. We find that the proposed incentive game based evolutionary model can help decision makers simulate evolutionary process under various scenarios. The crowd sensing networks structure significantly influence cooperation ratio and the total number of participant involved in the game, and the distribution of population with different game strategy. Through evolutionary game model, the manager can select an optimal price to facilitate the system reach equilibrium state quickly, and get the number of participants involved in the game. The incentive game based evolutionary model in crowd sensing networks provides valuable decision-making support to managers.


Game model Incentive mechanism Cooperation rates Crowd sensing networks 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61379110, 61073104, 61272494, 61272149), the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (2014CB046305), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25880002, 26730056, JSPS A3 Foresight Program.

Ethical statement

On behalf of, and having obtained permission from all the authors, I declare that:

(a) The material has not been published in whole or in part elsewhere;

(b) The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;

(c) This study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).

(d) No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support our conclusions

(e) All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantive work leading to the report, and will hold themselves jointly and individually responsible for its content;

(f) No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (“plagiarism”). Proper acknowledgements to other works have been given.

(g) All relevant ethical safeguards have been met in relation to patient or subject protection, or animal experimentation.

Conflict of interest

There are not potential conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Sun J, Ma H (2014) Heterogeneous-belief based incentive schemes for crowd sensing in mobile social networks. J Netw Comput Appl 42:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoteit S, Secci S, Sobolevsky S et al (2014) Estimating human trajectories and hotspots through mobile phone data. Comput Netw 64:296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mianxiong D, Kimata T, Sugiura K et al (2014) Quality-of-Experience (QoE) in emerging mobile social networks[J]. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 97(10):2606–2612Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ota K, Dong M, Cheng Z et al (2012) ORACLE: Mobility control in wireless sensor and actor networks. Comput Commun 35(9):1029–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dong M, Ota K, Li X, et al (2011) HARVEST: A task-objective efficient data collection scheme in wireless sensor and actor networks. Communications and Mobile Computing (CMC), 2011 Third International Conference on. IEEE pp 485–488Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thiagarajan A, Ravindranath L, LaCurts K, et al (2009) VTrack: Accurate, energy-aware road traffic delay estimation using mobile phones[C]. Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. ACM pp 85–98Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maisonneuve N, Stevens M, Niessen ME, et al (2009) NoiseTube: Measuring and mapping noise pollution with mobile phones[M]. Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg pp 215–228Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tham CK, Luo T (2014) Fairness and social welfare in service allocation schemes for participatory sensing. Comput Netw 73:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu W, Ma RTB, Lui JCS (2014) Distributed caching via rewarding: An incentive scheme design in P2P-VoD Systems. IEEE Trans Parallel Distributed Systems 25(3):612–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li S, Huang J (2014) Price differentiation for communication networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 22(3):703–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chorppath AK, Alpcan T (2013) Trading privacy with incentives in mobile commerce: A game theoretic approach. Pervasive Mob Comput 9(4):598–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen ZG, Wang T, Xiao DG et al (2013) Can remembering history from predecessor promote cooperation in the next generation? Chaos, Solitons Fractals 56:59–68MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang G, Ma F, Shang J et al (2014) Evolution of knowledge sharing behavior in social commerce: An agent-based computational approach. Inf Sci 278:250–266MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robert Ad, William DH (1981) The evolution of cooperation.
  15. 15.
    Robbins H (1985) Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Herbert Robbins Selected Papers. Springer, New York, pp 169–177Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nowak M, Sigmund K (1993) A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Nature 364(6432):56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith JM, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghergulescu I, Muntean CH (2014) A novel sensor-based methodology for learner’s motivation analysis in game-based learning. Interact Comput 26(4):305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen J, Kiremire AR, Brust MR et al (2014) Modeling online social network users’ profile attribute disclosure behavior from a game theoretic perspective. Comput Commun 49:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu TY, Lee WT, Guizani N et al (2014) Incentive mechanism for P2P file sharing based on social network and game theory. J Netw Comput Appl 41:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu G, Ji S, Cai Z (2014) Strengthen nodal cooperation for data dissemination in mobile social networks. Pers Ubiquit Comput 1–15Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chun-Mei GUI, Qiang JIAN, Huai-Min WANG, Quan-Yuan WU (2010) Repeated game theory based penalty-incentive mechanism in internet-based virtual computing environment. J Softw 21(12):3042–3055Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu F, Li X, Ding Y et al (2013) A social network-based trust-aware propagation model for P2P systems. Knowl-Based Syst 41:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tian C, Yang B (2014) A DS evidence theory based fuzzy trust model in file-sharing P2P networks. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 7(4):332–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen BB, Chan MC (2010) Mobicent: A credit-based incentive system for disruption tolerant network. 2010 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM pp 1–9Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ning T, Yang Z, Xie X, et al (2011) Incentive-aware data dissemination in delay-tolerant mobile networks. 8th Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (SECON) pp 539–547Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Okaie Y, Nakano T (2013) Resource pricing games on graphs: Existence of Nash equilibria. Optim Lett 7(2):231–240MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu A, Zhang D, Zhang P et al (2014) On mitigating hotspots to maximize network lifetime in multi-hop wireless sensor network with guaranteed transport delay and reliability. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appls 7(3):255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu A, Jin X, Cui G et al (2013) Deployment guidelines for achieving maximum lifetime and avoiding energy holes in sensor network. Inf Sci 230:197–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu Y, Liu A, Chen Z (2014) Analysis and improvement of send-and-wait automatic repeat-reQuest protocols for wireless sensor networks. Wirel Pers Commun 1–37. doi: 10.1007/s11277-014-2164-6
  31. 31.
    Zaki M, Athman B (2009) Reputation bootstrapping for trust establishment among web services. IEEE Internet Comput 13(1):40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Science and EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangShaChina
  2. 2.Muroran Institute of TechnologyMuroranJapan

Personalised recommendations