A Printed Camouflaged Cell Against Reverse Engineering of Printed Electronics Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Printed electronics (PE) enables disruptive applications in wearables, smart sensors, and healthcare since it provides mechanical flexibility, low cost, and on-demand fabrication. The progress in PE raises trust issues in the supply chain and vulnerability to reverse engineering (RE) attacks. Recently, RE attacks on PE circuits have been successfully performed, pointing out the need for countermeasures against RE, such as camouflaging. In this article, we propose a printed camouflaged logic cell that can be inserted into PE circuits to thwart RE. The proposed cell is based on three components achieved by changing the fabrication process that exploits the additive manufacturing feature of PE. These components are optically look-alike, while their electrical behaviors are different, functioning as a transistor, short, and open. The properties of the proposed cell and standard PE cells are compared in terms of voltage swing, delay, power consumption, and area. Moreover, the proposed camouflaged cell is fabricated and characterized to prove its functionality. Furthermore, numerous camouflaged components are fabricated, and their (in)distinguishability is assessed to validate their optical similarities based on the recent RE attacks on PE. The results show that the proposed cell is a promising candidate to be utilized in camouflaging PE circuits with negligible overhead.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".