| Literature DB >> 35890787 |
Mahmoud Hussein1,2, Yehia Sayed Mohammed2, Ahmed I Galal2, Emad Abd-Elrahman1, Mohamed Zorkany1.
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) era is mainly dependent on the word "Smart", such as smart cities, smart homes, and smart cars. This aspect can be achieved through the merging of machine learning algorithms with IoT computing models. By adding the Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms to IoT, the result is the Cognitive IoT (CIoT). In the automotive industry, many researchers worked on self-diagnosis systems using deep learning, but most of them performed this process on the cloud due to the hardware limitations of the end-devices, and the devices obtain the decision via the cloud servers. Others worked with simple traditional algorithms of machine learning to solve these limitations of the processing capabilities of the end-devices. In this paper, a self-diagnosis smart device is introduced with fast responses and little overhead using the Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP-NN) as a deep learning technique. The MLP-NN learning stage is performed using a Tensorflow framework to generate an MLP model's parameters. Then, the MLP-NN model is implemented using these model's parameters on a low cost end-device such as ARM Cortex-M Series architecture. After implementing the MLP-NN model, the IoT implementation is built to publish the decision results. With the proposed implemented method for the smart device, the output decision based on sensors values can be taken by the IoT node itself without returning to the cloud. For comparison, another solution is proposed for the cloud-based architecture, where the MLP-NN model is implemented on Cloud. The results clarify a successful implemented MLP-NN model for little capabilities end-devices, where the smart device solution has a lower traffic and latency than the cloud-based solution.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive IoT; critical systems; microcontrollers; neural networks; smart nodes
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890787 PMCID: PMC9316597 DOI: 10.3390/s22145106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
The relevant work comparison.
| Related Work | Training Process | Operation Process | Decision Maker |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | on-cloud | on-cloud | on-cloud |
| [ | on-device | on-device | on-device |
| The proposed solution | on-cloud | on-device | on-device |
Figure 1The proposed smart device architecture.
Figure 2The proposed cloud-based architecture.
Figure 3The layers stack for the proposed framework.
Figure 4The learning process structure.
Figure 5The Proposed CIoT Hardware Unit.
Figure 6Flow chart of IoT Implementations.
Figure 7Flow chart of AI-IoT Integration.
Figure 8The training and validation losses for the single hidden layer deep learning (MLP).
Figure 9The training and validation losses or the double hidden layers deep learning (MLP).
Figure 10The total average bytes in message.
The total average bytes in message for the two solutions with network loss.
| Loss | The Smart Device Proposed Solution | The Cloud-Based Smart Proposed Solution |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 165 | 180 |
| 5 | 172 | 191 |
| 10 | 211 | 234 |
| 15 | 241 | 282 |
| 20 | 273 | 332 |
| 25 | 321 | 409 |
| 30 | 390 | 542 |
Figure 11The total average delay for message.
The total average delay (seconds) for message for the two solutions with network loss.
| Loss | The Smart Device Proposed Solution | The Cloud-Based Smart Proposed Solution |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.001012 | 0.001035 |
| 5 | 0.002031 | 0.002291 |
| 10 | 0.049147 | 0.051023 |
| 15 | 0.137203 | 0.151072 |
| 20 | 0.492318 | 0.585108 |
| 25 | 1.420015 | 1.621284 |
| 30 | 2.237014 | 2.758305 |
The pros and cons of the On-Cloud training process and the On-Device training process.
| On-Cloud Training Process | On-Device Training Process | |
|---|---|---|
| Pros | - Cloud powerful training (No limited learning) | - Secure (local processing) |
| - Easy to do | - Internet connectivity is not required | |
| - Hardware Independent | ||
| - Low-cost training | ||
| - No embedded expensive hardware is required | ||
| Cons | - Security and privacy issues | - Limited learning compared to the Cloud learning |
| - Internet connectivity is required | - Requires high-capable devices (memory and speed) | |
| - Hardware dependent | ||
| - Expensive due to hardware cost |
The pros and cons of the On-Cloud operation process and decision maker, and the On-Device operation process and decision maker.
| On-Cloud Operation Process and Decision Maker | On-Device Operation Process and Decision Maker | |
|---|---|---|
| Pros | - Training and operation process on the same machine | - No further delay is required for decision-making |
| - Any update on MLP-NN structure is easier to rebuild | - Secure enough due to local actions | |
| - Faster powerful computing | - Internet connectivity is not required | |
| - Model updates on cloud only | - Works on limited-resources microcontrollers | |
| Cons | - Higher delay to get the decision back from the Cloud | - Requires updating for any MLP-NN structure |
| - Internet connectivity is required to take the decision | - Model updates should be applied to all devices | |
| - Security and privacy issues |