Cited by 77Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Towards Data Poisoning Attacks in Crowd Sensing Systems

Miao, Chenglin, Li, Qi, Xiao, Houping, Jiang, Wenjun, Huai, Mengdi, Su, Lu·2018·Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing

Abstract

With the proliferation of sensor-rich mobile devices, crowd sensing has emerged as a new paradigm of collecting information from the physical world. However, the sensory data provided by the participating workers are usually not reliable. In order to identify truthful values from the crowd sensing data, the topic of truth discovery, whose goal is to estimate each worker's reliability and infer the underlying truths through weighted data aggregation, is widely studied. Since truth discovery incorporates workers' reliability into the aggregation procedure, it shows robustness to the data poisoning attacks, which are usually conducted by the malicious workers who aim to degrade the effectiveness of the crowd sensing systems through providing malicious sensory data. However, truth discovery is not perfect in all cases. In this paper, we study how to effectively conduct two types of data poisoning attacks, i.e., the availability attack and the target attack, against a crowd sensing system empowered with the truth discovery mechanism. We develop an optimal attack framework in which the attacker can not only maximize his attack utility but also disguise the introduced malicious workers as normal ones such that they cannot be detected easily. The desirable performance of the proposed framework is verified through extensive experiments conducted on a real-world crowd sensing system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3209582.3209594

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 GAN attack allows a malicious participant to train a GAN to generate prototypical samples of the targeted private training data.

    “The GAN attack exploits the real-time nature of the FL learning process which allows the adversarial participant to train a GAN to generate prototypical samples of the targeted private training data.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miao, C., Li, Q., Xiao, H., Jiang, W., Huai, M., & Su, L.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-06-26
Pages
111-120
OpenAlex
W2809622771
Cited by
77
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9
FWCI
11.63
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
data poisoning, crowdsensing, truth discovery, malicious workers, attack detection evasion

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