Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
Machine learning algorithms are increasingly used for inference and decision-making in embedded systems. Data from sensors are used to train machine learning models for various smart functions of embedded and cyber-physical systems ranging from applications in healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and national security. However, recent studies have shown that machine learning models can be fooled by adding adversarial noise to their inputs. The perturbed inputs are called adversarial examples. Furthermore, adversarial examples designed to fool one machine learning system are also often effective against another system. This property of adversarial examples is calledmore » « less
adversarial transferability and has not been explored in wearable systems to date. In this work, we take the first stride in studying adversarial transferability in wearable sensor systems from four viewpoints: (1) transferability between machine learning models; (2) transferability across users/subjects of the embedded system; (3) transferability across sensor body locations; and (4) transferability across datasets used for model training. We present a set of carefully designed experiments to investigate these transferability scenarios. We also propose a threat model describing the interactions of an adversary with the source and target sensor systems in different transferability settings. In most cases, we found high untargeted transferability, whereas targeted transferability success scores varied from 0% to 80%. The transferability of adversarial examples depends on many factors such as the inclusion of data from all subjects, sensor body position, number of samples in the dataset, type of learning algorithm, and the distribution of source and target system dataset. The transferability of adversarial examples decreased sharply when the data distribution of the source and target system became more distinct. We also provide guidelines and suggestions for the community for designing robust sensor systems.Free, publicly-accessible full text available March 31, 2025 -
Free, publicly-accessible full text available December 1, 2024
-
Recent advances in machine learning and deep neural networks have led to the realization of many important applications in the area of personalized medicine. Whether it is detecting activities of daily living or analyzing images for cancerous cells, machine learning algorithms have become the dominant choice for such emerging applications. In particular, the state-of-the-art algorithms used for human activity recognition (HAR) using wearable inertial sensors utilize machine learning algorithms to detect health events and to make predictions from sensor data. Currently, however, there remains a gap in research on whether or not and how activity recognition algorithms may become the subject of adversarial attacks. In this paper, we take the first strides on (1) investigating methods of generating adversarial example in the context of HAR systems; (2) studying the vulnerability of activity recognition models to adversarial examples in feature and signal domain; and (3) investigating the effects of adversarial training on HAR systems. We introduce Adar, a novel computational framework for optimization-driven creation of adversarial examples in sensor-based activity recognition systems. Through extensive analysis based on real sensor data collected with human subjects, we found that simple evasion attacks are able to decrease the accuracy of a deep neural network from 95.1% to 3.4% and from 93.1% to 16.8% in the case of a convolutional neural network. With adversarial training, the robustness of the deep neural network increased on the adversarial examples by 49.1% in the worst case while the accuracy on clean samples decreased by 13.2%.more » « less