Mitigating Adversarial Attacks against IoT Profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) applications have been helping society in several ways. However, challenges still must be faced to enable efficient and secure IoT operations. In this context, IoT profiling refers to the service of identifying and classifying IoT devices’ behavior based on different features using different approaches (e.g., Deep Learning). Data poisoning and adversarial attacks are challenging to detect and mitigate and can degrade the performance of a trained model. Thereupon, the main goal of this research is to propose the Overlapping Label Recovery (OLR) framework to mitigate the effects of label-flipping attacks in Deep-Learning-based IoT profiling. OLR uses Random Forests (RF) as underlying cleaners to recover labels. After that, the dataset is re-evaluated and new labels are produced to minimize the impact of label flipping. OLR can be configured using different hyperparameters and we investigate how different values can improve the recovery procedure. The results obtained by evaluating Deep Learning (DL) models using a poisoned version of the CIC IoT Dataset 2022 demonstrate that training overlap needs to be controlled to maintain good performance and that the proposed strategy improves the overall profiling performance in all cases investigated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".