| Literature DB >> 35720880 |
Kuruva Lakshmanna1, R Kavitha2, B T Geetha3, Ashok Kumar Nanda4, Arun Radhakrishnan5, Rachna Kohar6.
Abstract
The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) has received significant attention from several leading industries like agriculture, mining, transport, energy, and healthcare. IIoT acts as a vital part of Industry 4.0 that mainly employs machine learning (ML) to investigate the interconnection and massive quantity of the IIoT data. As the data are generally saved at the cloud server, security and privacy of the collected data from numerous distributed and heterogeneous devices remain a challenging issue. This article develops a novel multi-agent system (MAS) with deep learning-based privacy preserving data transmission (BDL-PPDT) scheme for clustered IIoT environment. The goal of the BDL-PPDT technique is to accomplish secure data transmission in clustered IIoT environment. The BDL-PPDT technique involves a two-stage process. Initially, an enhanced moth swarm algorithm-based clustering (EMSA-C) technique is derived to choose a proper set of clusters in the IIoT system and construct clusters. Besides, multi-agent system is used to enable secure inter-cluster communication. Moreover, multi-head attention with bidirectional long short-term memory (MHA-BLSTM) model is applied for intrusion detection process. Furthermore, the hyperparameter tuning process of the MHA-BLSTM model can be carried out by the stochastic gradient descent with momentum (SGDM) model to improve the detection rate. For examining the promising performance of the BDL-PPDT technique, an extensive comparison study takes place and the results are assessed under varying measures. A significant amount of capital is required. It goes without saying that one of the most obvious industrial IoT concerns is the high cost of adoption. Secure data storage and management connectivity failures are common among IoT devices due to the massive amount of data they create. The simulation results demonstrate the enhanced outcomes of the BDL-PPDT technique over the recent methods. Despite the fact that the offered BDL-PPDT technique has an accuracy of just 98.15 percent, it produces the best feasible outcome. Because of the data analysis conducted as detailed above, it was determined that the BDL-PPDT technique outperformed the other current techniques on a range of different criteria and was thus recommended.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720880 PMCID: PMC9200536 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8927830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Working process of BDL-PPDT approach.
Figure 2Structure of blockchain.
Result analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with existing approaches.
| Packet delivery ratio (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IoT sensor nodes | DEEC | PHC | HNS | CHSES | RDAC-BC | BDL-PPDT |
| 100 | 94.74 | 94.57 | 96.80 | 95.48 | 98.11 | 99.72 |
| 200 | 91.93 | 94.61 | 96.26 | 96.44 | 98.87 | 99.23 |
| 300 | 92.21 | 94.32 | 95.84 | 96.22 | 97.10 | 98.97 |
| 400 | 91.86 | 91.89 | 92.53 | 95.88 | 96.50 | 98.84 |
| 500 | 91.45 | 92.76 | 94.39 | 93.53 | 97.69 | 98.16 |
|
| ||||||
| Throughput (Mbps) | ||||||
| IoT sensor nodes | DEEC | PHC | HNS | CHSES | RDAC-BC | BDL-PPDT |
|
| ||||||
| 100 | 69.98 | 84.17 | 88.89 | 88.68 | 98.16 | 99.71 |
| 200 | 63.40 | 76.46 | 83.26 | 84.32 | 94.27 | 98.42 |
| 300 | 61.05 | 68.33 | 75.50 | 76.67 | 92.03 | 93.80 |
| 400 | 54.68 | 60.53 | 68.89 | 71.76 | 88.97 | 91.57 |
| 500 | 51.48 | 55.31 | 62.24 | 70.42 | 85.05 | 89.72 |
Figure 3Throughput analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with existing approaches.
Figure 4PDR analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with existing approaches.
Comparative analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with varying IoT sensor nodes.
| Energy consumption (mJ) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IoT sensor nodes | DEEC | PHC | HNS | CHSES | RDAC-BC | BDL-PPDT |
| 100 | 0.2058 | 0.1690 | 0.1425 | 0.1165 | 0.0756 | 0.0470 |
| 200 | 0.4164 | 0.3315 | 0.2576 | 0.2761 | 0.1496 | 0.1176 |
| 300 | 0.5478 | 0.5684 | 0.4784 | 0.4635 | 0.2343 | 0.2017 |
| 400 | 0.7226 | 0.6687 | 0.6027 | 0.6048 | 0.3570 | 0.2872 |
| 500 | 0.8872 | 0.8277 | 0.7007 | 0.7351 | 0.4084 | 0.3654 |
|
| ||||||
| Network lifetime (rounds) | ||||||
| IoT sensor nodes | DEEC | PHC | HNS | CHSES | RDAC-BC | BDL-PPDT |
| 100 | 1386 | 1492 | 1529 | 1588 | 1612 | 1793 |
| 200 | 1725 | 1807 | 1864 | 1918 | 2077 | 2218 |
| 300 | 2305 | 2271 | 2389 | 2405 | 2613 | 2756 |
| 400 | 2718 | 2789 | 2853 | 2885 | 3191 | 3362 |
| 500 | 3103 | 3326 | 3289 | 3463 | 3547 | 3633 |
Figure 5NLT analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with existing approaches.
Figure 6ECM analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with existing approaches.
NASN analysis of the BDL-PPDT technique with different rounds.
| No. of alive sensor nodes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of rounds | DEEC | PHC | HNS | CHSES | RDAC-BC | BDL-PPDT |
| 400 | 404 | 406 | 451 | 476 | 500 | 500 |
| 800 | 384 | 394 | 436 | 458 | 495 | 499 |
| 1200 | 361 | 357 | 418 | 427 | 492 | 497 |
| 1600 | 322 | 359 | 390 | 412 | 486 | 492 |
| 2000 | 304 | 338 | 395 | 403 | 479 | 489 |
| 2400 | 205 | 227 | 288 | 259 | 451 | 470 |
| 2800 | 62 | 151 | 190 | 184 | 386 | 387 |
| 3200 | 20 | 32 | 37 | 50 | 309 | 320 |
| 3500 | 12 | 19 | 28 | 30 | 138 | 210 |
Figure 7NASN analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with varying rounds.
NDSN analysis of the BDL-PPDT technique with different rounds.
| No. of dead sensor nodes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of rounds | DEEC | PHC | HNS | CHSES | RDAC-BC | BDL-PPDT |
| 400 | 96 | 94 | 49 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| 800 | 116 | 106 | 64 | 42 | 5 | 1 |
| 1200 | 139 | 143 | 82 | 73 | 8 | 3 |
| 1600 | 178 | 141 | 110 | 88 | 14 | 8 |
| 2000 | 196 | 162 | 105 | 97 | 21 | 11 |
| 2400 | 295 | 273 | 212 | 241 | 49 | 30 |
| 2800 | 438 | 349 | 310 | 316 | 114 | 113 |
| 3200 | 480 | 468 | 463 | 450 | 191 | 180 |
| 3500 | 488 | 481 | 472 | 470 | 362 | 290 |
Figure 8NDSN analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with varying rounds.
Comparative analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with different measures.
| Methods | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Far |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN model | 91.64 | 97.85 | 91.99 | 94.67 | 8.56 |
| LSTM-RNN | 93.39 | 98.11 | 94.41 | 96.12 | 6.81 |
| GRU-RNN | 92.63 | 97.52 | 93.45 | 95.34 | 7.57 |
| DBN model | 95.22 | 97.55 | 96.50 | 97.11 | 3.98 |
| CNID | 98.54 | 99.98 | 97.56 | 98.49 | 0.02 |
| BDL-PPDT | 98.15 | 99.99 | 98.64 | 98.96 | 0.01 |
Figure 9Accuracy analysis of BDL-PPDT technique with existing approaches.