Cited by 81Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

A Neural Network-Based On-device Learning Anomaly Detector for Edge Devices

Open access
Tsukada, Mineto, Kondo, Masaaki, Matsutani, Hiroki·2020·IEEE Transactions on Computers

Abstract

Semi-supervised anomaly detection is an approach to identify anomalies by learning the distribution of normal data. Backpropagation neural networks (i.e., BP-NNs) based approaches have recently drawn attention because of their good generalization capability. In a typical situation, BP-NN-based models are iteratively optimized in server machines with input data gathered from the edge devices. However, (1) the iterative optimization often requires significant efforts to follow changes in the distribution of normal data (i.e., concept drift), and (2) data transfers between edge and server impose additional latency and energy consumption. To address these issues, we propose ONLAD and its IP core, named ONLAD Core. ONLAD is highly optimized to perform fast sequential learning to follow concept drift in less than one millisecond. ONLAD Core realizes on-device learning for edge devices at low power consumption, which realizes standalone execution where data transfers between edge and server are not required. Experiments show that ONLAD has favorable anomaly detection capability in an environment that simulates concept drift. Evaluations of ONLAD Core confirm that the training latency is 1.95x~6.58x faster than the other software implementations. Also, the runtime power consumption of ONLAD Core implemented on PYNQ-Z1 board, a small FPGA/CPU SoC platform, is 5.0x~25.4x lower than them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tc.2020.2973631

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The requirement that all IoT devices devote their storage and computing resources for data training to achieve synchronous update at the server is not always met due to resource constraints of certain IoT devices with weak computation capacities, which can cause significant delays to synchronized parameter aggregation at the server.

    “Unfortunately, this requirement is not always met due to the resource constraints of certain IoT devices with weak computation capacities [197], which thus can cause significant delays to the synchronized parameter aggregation at the server.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsukada, M., Kondo, M., & Matsutani, H.
Affiliations
  • Keio University (JP)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Computers
Published
2020
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 0018-9340 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9956
  • 2326-3814
OpenAlex
W3008250732
Cited by
81
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6
FWCI
5.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Computers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
JST CREST (JPMJCR1785)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
anomaly detection, on-device learning, edge devices, semi-supervised learning, concept drift, BP neural network, FPGA implementation, low-power electronics, training latency, PYNQ-Z1

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review