Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Defending Against Network Attacks for Secure AI Agent Migration in Vehicular Metaverses

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a learning-based pre-migration policy plus a trust mechanism that bans compromised roadside units cuts AI agent migration latency by about 43.3 percent while resisting DDoS and malicious-RSU attacks.

desk verdict A plausible proof-of-concept for secure AI-agent migration in vehicular metaverses, but the 43.3% latency claim relies on oracle attack knowledge and a trust threshold tuned on ground-truth labels, so it needs major revision before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20154 v1 pith:SLPISETS submitted 2024-12-28 cs.NI

Xinru Wen , Jinbo Wen , Ming Xiao , Jiawen Kang , Tao Zhang , Xiaohuan Li , Chuanxi Chen , Dusit Niyato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords vehicularmetaversesAIagentmigrationDDoSattacksmaliciousroadsideunitsmulti-agentreinforcementlearningPOMDPtrustassessmentpre-migrationlatency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

AI agents in vehicular metaverses must hop between roadside units (RSUs) as vehicles move, and those hops can be disrupted by DDoS floods or by RSUs that attackers have compromised. This paper proposes an online migration framework that combines two defenses: a multi-agent reinforcement learning policy (MAPPO) that decides whether and how much of an AI agent to pre-migrate to the next RSU, and a trust assessment mechanism that scores RSUs and bans those whose malicious score exceeds an adaptive threshold. The authors model the migration decision as a partially observable Markov decision process to handle incomplete environment information, and they report that the combined framework reduces total migration latency by about 43.3 percent compared with baseline policies while keeping DDoS and malicious-RSU attacks in check. The result matters because seamless in-car metaverse services depend on migrations completing before the vehicle leaves the current RSU's coverage.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three components: (1) the POMDP formulation, whose observation space includes the vehicle position, current and next RSU workloads, total migration latency, and a DDoS-attack frequency indicator, and whose action is the binary pre-migration decision; (2) the MAPPO algorithm, with clipped policy updates and a joint advantage function, which learns the pre-migration policy from trajectories stored in a replay buffer; and (3) the trust assessment mechanism, which computes a malicious score $W_e(t)$ from direct abnormal-packet counts and indirect task-completion rates, compares it with an adaptive threshold $Y$ that is adjusted using banning rate and false-banning rate, and bans RSUs whose score exceeds the threshold. These pieces are linked in a two-stage architecture where the MAPPO policy selects migration targets among RSUs not under DDoS, and the trust mechanism filters out malicious RSUs before migration.

What would settle it

Run the proposed MAPPO and trust mechanism in the same simulator but with the adaptive threshold computed only from observed completion rates and packet anomalies, never from ground-truth RSU labels, and check whether the banning rate stays high while the false-banning rate stays low; if the false-banning rate rises sharply or the banning rate collapses, the central defense claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that secure AI agent migration can be cast as a POMDP whose solution, learned by MAPPO, lets each vehicle choose a pre-migration action (none, partial, or full) based on local observations including RSU workloads, total latency, and a DDoS attack frequency indicator, and that this policy survives direct, indirect, and hybrid DDoS attacks while lowering latency. A second claim is that an RSU's trustworthiness can be summarized by a malicious score combining direct packet-anomaly flags with indirect task-completion rates, and that an adaptively updated banning threshold can exclude malicious RSUs from the migration path without banning normal ones, as measured by banning rate and false-banning rate. Numerical results in a simulated 15-RSU, 20-vehicle urban scenario show the MAPPO policy outperforming five baselines on reward and latency, with up to 43.4 percent lower latency, and the trust mechanism driving the false-banning rate down while the banning rate rises over training.

Load-bearing premise

The defense's reported blocking accuracy depends on knowing, during tuning, which RSUs are truly malicious, because the adaptive threshold is adjusted using ground-truth counts of correct and incorrect classifications; without that knowledge the banning and false-banning rates could look worse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results hold, vehicles can choose whether to pre-migrate an AI agent, and how much, based on partial observations, which keeps migration latency low even when RSUs are under DDoS.
  • The trust assessment mechanism can separate malicious from normal RSUs well enough that banning the malicious ones does not accidentally ban many normal ones, as shown by the rising banning rate and falling false-banning rate.
  • The latency reduction persists across different AI agent task sizes (25 to 200 MB) and across direct, indirect, and hybrid DDoS attacks, with the largest gain under hybrid attacks.
  • The framework's complexity grows as $O(E T U (U + K))$ for MAPPO and $O(E T U^2)$ for the trust mechanism, so it remains feasible for the simulated scale of tens of vehicles and RSUs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the adaptive ban threshold is tuned using ground-truth counts of which RSUs are actually malicious, the reported banning and false-banning rates assume an oracle that a real deployment would not have; this is an inference, not a claim the paper makes.
  • The same POMDP-plus-MAPPO pattern could apply to other live-migration services under partial observability, such as augmented-reality offloading or drone-assisted edge computing, though the paper only demonstrates it for vehicular AI agents.
  • The 43.3 percent latency saving is relative to the paper's baselines (full pre-migration, no pre-migration, a soft-actor-critic variant, greedy, and random), so the absolute gain in a real deployment would depend on the attack mix, RSU density, and traffic profile.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the problem of migrating LLM-based AI agents between roadside units in vehicular metaverses while defending against DDoS and malicious-RSU attacks. The authors formulate the pre-migration decision as a POMDP, solve it with MAPPO, and add a trust-assessment mechanism that computes a malicious score for each RSU and adaptively bans untrusted RSUs. The numerical section compares the proposed scheme with five baselines and reports an approximate 43.3% reduction in total migration latency, together with improved reward and banning-rate metrics.

Significance. The problem is timely, and the paper is clearly written at the level of the framework. The authors deserve credit for modeling three DDoS variants and a malicious-RSU threat within one migration framework, and for comparing against several baselines. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported as stated, because the simulation gives the policy and the trust mechanism access to ground-truth attack labels. The proposed architecture may still be viable, but the reported numbers are better interpreted as an upper bound of oracle-informed performance. A revised version that removes privileged information from the reward, observation, and threshold-adaptation loop would make the contribution credible.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV-V, Eq. (15), Eq. (17), Algorithm 1 line 6] The reward in Eq. (15) and the observation in Eq. (17) contain Ye(t) and Je(t), which are ground-truth indicators of DDoS attack status, and Algorithm 1 line 6 explicitly directs migration to RSUs that are not subject to DDoS attacks. No detection-error model is described, so the policy is trained and evaluated with perfect attack knowledge. The reported 43.3% latency reduction is therefore an upper bound of oracle-informed decisions, not evidence of successful defense under realistic detection uncertainty. Please add a detection module with tunable false-positive and false-negative rates and evaluate the end-to-end policy under noisy attack indicators.
  2. [§VI.B, Eqs. (34)-(36)] The adaptive threshold is updated using FBR and BR, defined in Eqs. (35)-(36) from ground-truth TP/TN/FP/FN labels. In deployment these labels are unavailable, so Fig. 8 measures an oracle-tuned threshold rather than the proposed mechanism's autonomous behavior. Please specify how FBR and BR are estimated online, for example from a labeled validation set or via unsupervised proxies, and re-evaluate the mechanism under that realistic information.
  3. [§V.B, Eq. (25)] The critic loss in Eq. (25) minimizes (Vφu(o_t^u) − r(t))², i.e., it regresses the value function to the immediate reward. In PPO/MAPPO the critic target should be a discounted return or a bootstrapped target; using r(t) makes the value function inconsistent with Eq. (24) and with the advantage estimator. Please correct the critic target and re-run the convergence comparisons.
  4. [§V.B, Eq. (23)] The advantage function in Eq. (23) is written as Q[o_t^u,a_t^u] minus the average Q over actions. Q is never defined as a learned quantity in the MAPPO setup; Eq. (24) only gives its conceptual definition, and standard MAPPO uses generalized advantage estimation with the critic value function. Please define the estimator actually implemented; as written, Eq. (23) is not computable from the stated network outputs.
  5. [§III.B, Eq. (13)] The conditional definition of total processing latency Γproc_u(t) in Eq. (13) needs justification. As written, it selects one of two mutually exclusive processing paths, but the total latency in Eq. (14) then adds downlink components that depend on both RSUs, so the model may double-count or omit latency depending on the branch. Please clarify whether this is intended as a minimum over the two paths and ensure Eq. (14) is consistent with that interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.B, Eq. (7)] There is a formatting error in Eq. (7): 'σS comp' should be 'σ S_comp' and 'andγu(t)' is missing a space.
  2. [§VI.A, after Eq. (33), and Algorithm 2 line 10] The text says that when We(t) is less than the threshold Y, the RSU is considered malicious and banned, but Algorithm 2 line 10 applies the ban when We(t) > Y. These statements conflict and must be reconciled.
  3. [§VI.B, Eq. (34)] The sentence introducing Eq. (34) says τ and ζ are thresholds of FBR and BR respectively, but the conditions use BR ≤ τ and FBR > ζ. The notation should be fixed so that the thresholds are matched to the correct metrics.
  4. [§VII.B] The sentence 'shows improvements that of 60.5%' is ungrammatical, and Fig. 5 lacks an x-axis label, which makes the reported task-size sweep difficult to verify.
  5. [§VII] Numerical results are reported without error bars or multiple-seed statistics; since MAPPO is stochastic, please add variance information or at least state the number of random seeds used.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

DDoS defense results use ground-truth attack labels in the reward, observation, and algorithm instruction, and the trust threshold is tuned with ground-truth BR/FBR; the 43.3% latency and FBR/BR numbers are thus oracle-informed rather than validated learned defense.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (15); Section V-A, Eq. (17); Algorithm 1, line 6]
    "FE(t) = Σ_{e=1}^{E} Nu,e(t)Ye(t), where Ye(t) is an indicator function, based on DDoS anomaly detection, that takes 1 if RSU e is attacked, and 0 otherwise [36]. ... Migrate AI agents to RSUs that are not subject to DDoS attacks;"

    The MAPPO reward (15) penalizes FE(t), which is built from the ground-truth attack indicator Ye(t), and the observation (17) includes Je(t), the DDoS attack frequency. Algorithm 1 line 6 then explicitly instructs agents to migrate to RSUs 'not subject to DDoS attacks.' No detection-error or false-alarm model is specified for Ye(t) or Je(t), so in the simulation these are privileged attack labels. The policy is therefore trained and executed with oracle knowledge of which RSUs are under attack, making the reported DDoS mitigation and the 43.3% latency reduction a measure of clairvoyant avoidance rather than a learned defense under the partial observability the POMDP formalism claims to address.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section VI-B, Eqs. (34)-(36); Algorithm 2, line 13]
    "Ynew = Yold + ς, if BR ≤ τ, Yold − ς, if FBR > ζ, Yold, otherwise, ... FBR = FP/(FP+TN), BR = TP/(TP+FN)"

    The adaptive ban threshold in Eq. (34) is updated using the False Banning Rate and Banning Rate, and Eqs. (35)-(36) define FBR and BR in terms of ground-truth TP, TN, FP, and FN counts of malicious versus normal RSUs. Algorithm 2 line 13 updates the threshold from Eq. (34), so in simulation the decision boundary is tuned with labels that are unavailable in deployment. The Fig. 8 FBR/BR curves then report the same ground-truth-derived quantities used to set the threshold; the apparent improvement in banning accuracy is partially forced by oracle access to which RSUs are actually malicious.

full rationale

The migration-latency model itself is internally consistent: Eqs. (1)-(14) define a normal latency model, and Eqs. (16)-(19) form an ordinary RL formulation. I found no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; the cited prior work supplies standard DRL and twin-migration components rather than the paper's central claim. The circularity is concentrated in how the defense results are generated. First, the reward and observation embed ground-truth DDoS indicators: Eq. (15) penalizes FE(t) built from Ye(t), Eq. (17) feeds Je(t) to the policy, and Algorithm 1 line 6 directly instructs migration to RSUs 'not subject to DDoS attacks.' Since no detection-error model is given, the 43.3% latency reduction and DDoS-mitigation curves are an upper bound on oracle-informed avoidance, not a validated learned defense under partial observability. Second, the trust mechanism's adaptive threshold uses FBR/BR computed from ground-truth TP/TN/FP/FN labels, and Fig. 8 then reports those same oracle-derived quantities as the mechanism's performance; the evaluation metric and the controller input are the same labeled data. The latency optimization under normal conditions and the MAPPO convergence comparisons retain independent content, so the paper is partially but not wholly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on multiple hand-picked coefficients and on two oracle-like inputs: the anomaly indicator in the DDoS reward and the ground-truth labels used to adapt the trust threshold. These are inputs the reader must accept without independent evidence, so the reported 43% latency gain and the Fig. 8 curves are not externally anchored.

free parameters (5)
  • Utility weights lambda, beta, mu (Eq. 15) = Not reported
    These weights shape the reward that MAPPO optimizes. Their values are not listed in Table II and are not swept in the experiments, yet the latency, reward, and comparison results depend on them.
  • Malicious-score weights vartheta, varrho, varpi (Eq. 33) = Not reported
    These coefficients determine how direct anomaly counts, completion rates, and time penalties combine into W_e(t); no values or sensitivity analysis are given.
  • Trust thresholds N_thr, Gamma_thr, varsigma, tau, zeta (Eqs. 29, 31, 34) = Not reported
    The abnormal-packet threshold and latency threshold define direct and indirect trust evidence; the adaptive-threshold step and the FBR/BR comparison values set banning behavior. None are specified.
  • Attack parameters (DDoS traffic intensity, malicious RSU count or fraction) = Not reported
    The abstract's 43.3% latency claim cannot be reproduced without the attack generation model, which is not described quantitatively.
  • Pre-migration ratio sigma (Eq. 7) = Not reported
    The size of pre-migrated data depends on sigma, but its value or adaptation rule is not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DDoS attack status of each RSU is observable through the anomaly indicator Y_e(t) and attack frequency J_e(t) available to agents (Eqs. 15 and 17).
    Algorithm 1 line 6 instructs agents to migrate to RSUs that are not subject to DDoS attacks; this presumes a detection mechanism exists and is accurate, but the paper does not model detection errors.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth malicious labels (TP, TN, FP, FN) are available to compute FBR and BR and to adapt the banning threshold (Eqs. 34-36).
    False banning and banning rates require knowing which RSUs are truly malicious. The paper uses these metrics to tune Y, so the evaluation and the mechanism depend on an oracle unavailable in deployment.
  • standard math The latency model in Eqs. (1)-(14) captures the dominant costs of AI agent migration; uplink and downlink rates follow Shannon with Rayleigh fading as in ref [34].
    These are standard communication models invoked without derivation; reasonable for a simulation study, but they bound the realism of the latency claim.
  • domain assumption AI agent migration tasks are divisible and pre-migration can be arbitrarily partitioned by sigma (Eqs. 6-7).
    The action space only decides whether to pre-migrate, with fixed sigma; the model assumes partial migration is always feasible and cost-linear.
  • domain assumption The NP-hard optimization in Eq. (16) can be adequately approximated by POMDP/MAPPO with the stated observation, action, and reward structure.
    No optimality gap or comparison to optimal or approximate solutions is provided; the paper assumes the learned policies are near-optimal.
invented entities (1)
  • RSU malicious score W_e(t) (Eq. 33)
    purpose: Aggregates direct anomaly evidence, completion rate, and time decay to rank RSU trustworthiness and ban malicious RSUs.
    The score is a new composite quantity with no independent validation against real-world RSU behavior; its values depend on unreported coefficients and an oracle-tuned threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defending Against Network Attacks for Secure AI Agent Migration in Vehicular Metaverses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLPISETS

@misc{pith2026241220154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defending Against Network Attacks for Secure AI Agent Migration in Vehicular Metaverses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLPISETS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20154}
}
read the original abstract

Vehicular metaverses, blending traditional vehicular networks with metaverse technology, are expected to revolutionize fields such as autonomous driving. As virtual intelligent assistants in vehicular metaverses, Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents powered by large language models can create immersive 3D virtual spaces for passengers to enjoy on-broad vehicular applications and services. To provide users with seamless and engaging virtual interactions, resource-limited vehicles offload AI agents to RoadSide Units (RSUs) with adequate communication and computational capabilities. Due to the mobility of vehicles and the limited coverage of RSUs, AI agents need to migrate from one RSU to another RSU. However, potential network attacks pose significant challenges to ensuring reliable and efficient AI agent migration. In this paper, we first explore specific network attacks including traffic-based attacks (i.e., DDoS attacks) and infrastructure-based attacks (i.e., malicious RSU attacks). Then, we model the AI agent migration process as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) and apply multi-agent proximal policy optimization algorithms to mitigate DDoS attacks. In addition, we propose a trust assessment mechanism to counter malicious RSU attacks. Numerical results validate that the proposed solutions effectively defend against these network attacks and reduce the total latency of AI agent migration by approximately 43.3%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20154 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Online AI agent migration framework in vehicular metaverses. We systematically present four typical network attacks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of the proposed MAPPO-based online [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average test rewards of MAPPO and other base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average total migration latency under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average test rewards of MAPPO and other baseline algorithms under different DDoS attack types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance evaluation of the proposed trust assessment mechanism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Confidence-Regulated Generative Diffusion Models for Reliable AI Agent Migration in Vehicular Metaverses

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A confidence-weighted diffusion reinforcement learning algorithm reduces simulated latency and improves attack robustness for AI agent migration in vehicular metaverses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A Full Dive Into Realizing the Edge- Enabled Metaverse: Visions, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges,

    M. Xu, W. C. Ng, W. Y . B. Lim, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, Q. Yang, X. Shen, and C. Miao, “A Full Dive Into Realizing the Edge- Enabled Metaverse: Visions, Enabling Technologies, and Challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 656– 700, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Blockchain-empowered federated learning for healthcare metaverses: User-centric incentive mechanism with optimal data freshness,

    J. Kang, J. Wen, D. Ye, B. Lai, T. Wu, Z. Xiong, J. Nie, D. Niyato, Y . Zhang, and S. Xie, “Blockchain-empowered federated learning for healthcare metaverses: User-centric incentive mechanism with optimal data freshness,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 348–362, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Metaverse for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): A Comprehensive Review of Technologies, Applications, Implications, Challenges and Future Directions,

    D. S. Sarwatt, Y . Lin, J. Ding, Y . Sun, and H. Ning, “Metaverse for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): A Comprehensive Review of Technologies, Applications, Implications, Challenges and Future Directions,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 6290–6308, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Mutual Theory of Mind in Human-AI Collabo- ration: An Empirical Study with LLM-driven AI Agents in a Real-time Shared Workspace Task,

    S. Zhang, X. Wang, W. Zhang, Y . Chen, L. Gao, D. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Wang, and Y . Wen, “Mutual Theory of Mind in Human-AI Collabo- ration: An Empirical Study with LLM-driven AI Agents in a Real-time Shared Workspace Task,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08811 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Joint User Association and Resource Pricing for Metaverse: Dis- tributed and Centralized Approaches,

    X. Huang, W. Zhong, J. Nie, Q. Hu, Z. Xiong, J. Kang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Joint User Association and Resource Pricing for Metaverse: Dis- tributed and Centralized Approaches,” in 2022 IEEE 19th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Smart Systems (MASS) , 2022, pp. 505–513

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Reliable Distributed Computing for Metaverse: A Hierarchical Game- Theoretic Approach,

    Y . Jiang, J. Kang, D. Niyato, X. Ge, Z. Xiong, C. Miao, and X. Shen, “Reliable Distributed Computing for Metaverse: A Hierarchical Game- Theoretic Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1084–1100, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Blockchain-assisted twin migration for vehicular metaverses: A game theory approach,

    Y . Zhong, J. Wen, J. Zhang, J. Kang, Y . Jiang, Y . Zhang, Y . Cheng, and Y . Tong, “Blockchain-assisted twin migration for vehicular metaverses: A game theory approach,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunica- tions Technologies, vol. 34, no. 12, p. e4856, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Edge Computing-Based DDoS Attack Detection for Intelligent Transportation Systems,

    A. Gaurav, B. B. Gupta, and K. T. Chui, “Edge Computing-Based DDoS Attack Detection for Intelligent Transportation Systems,” inCyber Security, Privacy and Networking , D. P. Agrawal, N. Nedjah, B. B. Gupta, and G. Martinez Perez, Eds. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2022, pp. 175–184

    work page 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    DDoS Attack and Detection Methods in Internet-Enabled Networks: Concept, Research Perspectives, and Challenges,

    K. B. Adedeji, A. M. Abu-Mahfouz, and A. M. Kurien, “DDoS Attack and Detection Methods in Internet-Enabled Networks: Concept, Research Perspectives, and Challenges,” Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, vol. 12, no. 4, 2023. 13

    2023

  2. [10]

    How to Mitigate DDoS Intelligently in SD-IoV: A Moving Target Defense Approach,

    T. Zhang, C. Xu, P. Zou, H. Tian, X. Kuang, S. Yang, L. Zhong, and D. Niyato, “How to Mitigate DDoS Intelligently in SD-IoV: A Moving Target Defense Approach,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1097–1106, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Towards Attack-Resistant Service Function Chain Migration: A Model-Based Adaptive Proximal Policy Optimization Approach,

    T. Zhang, C. Xu, B. Zhang, X. Li, X. Kuang, and L. A. Grieco, “Towards Attack-Resistant Service Function Chain Migration: A Model-Based Adaptive Proximal Policy Optimization Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 4913–4927, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Real-Time Detection and Estimation of Denial of Service Attack in Connected Vehicle Systems,

    Z. Abdollahi Biron, S. Dey, and P. Pisu, “Real-Time Detection and Estimation of Denial of Service Attack in Connected Vehicle Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 3893–3902, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    A deep learning approach for detecting covert timing channel attacks using sequential data,

    S. Al-Eidi, O. Darwish, Y . Chen, M. Maabreh, and Y . Tashtoush, “A deep learning approach for detecting covert timing channel attacks using sequential data,” Cluster Computing, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1655–1665, jun 2023

    2023

  6. [15]

    Metaverse: Requirements, Architecture, Standards, Status, Challenges, and Perspectives,

    D. B. Rawat and H. El Alami, “Metaverse: Requirements, Architecture, Standards, Status, Challenges, and Perspectives,” IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 14–18, 2023

    2023

  7. [16]

    Realizing the Metaverse with Edge Intelligence: A Match Made in Heaven,

    W. Y . B. Lim, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, X. Cao, C. Miao, S. Sun, and Q. Yang, “Realizing the Metaverse with Edge Intelligence: A Match Made in Heaven,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 64–71, 2023

    2023

  8. [17]

    Digital Twin and Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Panoramic Video Streaming: Reducing Trans- mission Latency in the Extended Reality-Assisted Vehicular Metaverse,

    S. Li, X. Lin, J. Wu, W. Zhang, and J. Li, “Digital Twin and Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Panoramic Video Streaming: Reducing Trans- mission Latency in the Extended Reality-Assisted Vehicular Metaverse,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 56–65, 2023

    2023

  9. [18]

    Task Freshness-aware Incentive Mechanism for Vehicle Twin Migration in Vehicular Metaverses,

    J. Wen, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, Y . Zhang, H. Du, Y . Jiao, and D. Niyato, “Task Freshness-aware Incentive Mechanism for Vehicle Twin Migration in Vehicular Metaverses,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metaverse Computing, Networking and Applications (MetaCom) , 2023, pp. 481–487

    2023

  10. [19]

    Resource Allocation for Augmented Reality Empowered Vehicular Edge Metaverse,

    J. Feng and J. Zhao, “Resource Allocation for Augmented Reality Empowered Vehicular Edge Metaverse,” IEEE Transactions on Com- munications, pp. 1–1, 2023

    2023

  11. [20]

    Adaptive Edge Association for Wireless Digital Twin Networks in 6G,

    Y . Lu, S. Maharjan, and Y . Zhang, “Adaptive Edge Association for Wireless Digital Twin Networks in 6G,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 22, pp. 16 219–16 230, 2021

    2021

  12. [21]

    Tiny Multi-Agent DRL for Twins Migration in UA V Metaverses: A Multi-Leader Multi-Follower Stackelberg Game Approach,

    J. Kang, Y . Zhong, M. Xu, J. Nie, J. Wen, H. Du, D. Ye, X. Huang, D. Niyato, and S. Xie, “Tiny Multi-Agent DRL for Twins Migration in UA V Metaverses: A Multi-Leader Multi-Follower Stackelberg Game Approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. PP, pp. 1–1, 06 2024

    2024

  13. [22]

    Security and design require- ments for software-defined V ANETs,

    W. Ben Jaballah, M. Conti, and C. Lal, “Security and design require- ments for software-defined V ANETs,”Computer Networks, vol. 169, p. 107099, 2020

    2020

  14. [23]

    Privacy Attacks and Defenses for Digital Twin Migrations in Vehicular Metaverses,

    X. Luo, J. Wen, J. Kang, J. Nie, Z. Xiong, Y . Zhang, Z. Yang, and S. Xie, “Privacy Attacks and Defenses for Digital Twin Migrations in Vehicular Metaverses,” IEEE Network, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 82–91, 2023

    2023

  15. [24]

    Collaborative-trust approach toward malicious node detection in vehic- ular ad hoc networks,

    S. Sultan, Q. Javaid, A. J. Malik, F. Al-Turjman, and M. Attique, “Collaborative-trust approach toward malicious node detection in vehic- ular ad hoc networks,” Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable ...

    2022

  16. [25]

    A Scalable Blockchain-Based Trust Management Strategy for Vehicular Networks,

    M. Li, G. Zhao, and R. Lai, “A Scalable Blockchain-Based Trust Management Strategy for Vehicular Networks,” in Wireless Al- gorithms, Systems, and Applications: 17th International Conference, WASA 2022, Dalian, China, November 24-26, 2022, Proceedings, Part III. Berlin, H...

    2022

  17. [26]

    A Trust Based Energy and Mobility Aware Routing Protocol to Improve Infotainment Services in V ANETs,

    S. Shafi and V . Ratnam, “A Trust Based Energy and Mobility Aware Routing Protocol to Improve Infotainment Services in V ANETs,” Peer- to-Peer Networking and Applications , vol. 15, pp. 1–16, 01 2022

    2022

  18. [27]

    When Moving Target Defense Meets Attack Prediction in Digital Twins: A Convolutional and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Ap- proach,

    T. Zhang, C. Xu, Y . Lian, H. Tian, J. Kang, X. Kuang, and D. Niyato, “When Moving Target Defense Meets Attack Prediction in Digital Twins: A Convolutional and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Ap- proach,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 10, ...

    2023

  19. [28]

    DDoS-Net: Classifying DDoS Attacks in Wireless Sensor Networks with Hybrid Deep Learning,

    F. Reza, “DDoS-Net: Classifying DDoS Attacks in Wireless Sensor Networks with Hybrid Deep Learning,” in 2024 6th International Con- ference on Electrical Engineering and Information & Communication Technology (ICEEICT), 2024, pp. 487–492

    2024

  20. [29]

    Obaidat, M

    M. Obaidat, M. Khodjaeva, J. Holst, and M. Ben Zid, Security and Privacy Challenges in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 223–251

    2020

  21. [30]

    Security and Privacy Challenges in Connected Vehicular Cloud Computing,

    A. Masood, D. S. Lakew, and S. Cho, “Security and Privacy Challenges in Connected Vehicular Cloud Computing,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2725–2764, 2020

    2020

  22. [31]

    Privacy-Preserving Content Dissemination for Vehicular Social Networks: Challenges and Solutions,

    X. Wang, Z. Ning, M. Zhou, X. Hu, L. Wang, Y . Zhang, F. R. Yu, and B. Hu, “Privacy-Preserving Content Dissemination for Vehicular Social Networks: Challenges and Solutions,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1314–1345, 2019

    2019

  23. [32]

    M. F. Singha and R. Patgiri, A Survey on DDoS Detection Using Deep Learning in Software Defined Networking . Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 11 2023, pp. 479–494

    2023

  24. [33]

    DRiVe: Detecting Malicious Roadside Units in the Internet of Vehicles With Low Latency Data Integrity,

    N. V . Abhishek, M. N. Aman, T. J. Lim, and B. Sikdar, “DRiVe: Detecting Malicious Roadside Units in the Internet of Vehicles With Low Latency Data Integrity,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 3270–3281, 2022

    2022

  25. [34]

    A mathematical theory of communication,

    C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” SIGMO- BILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–53, Jan. 2001

    2001

  26. [35]

    UA V-Assisted Dynamic Avatar Task Migration for Vehicular Metaverse Services: A Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,

    J. Kang, J. Chen, M. Xu, Z. Xiong, Y . Jiao, L. Han, D. Niyato, Y . Tong, and S. Xie, “UA V-Assisted Dynamic Avatar Task Migration for Vehicular Metaverse Services: A Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 11, no. 2, pp....

    2024

  27. [36]

    A Survey on Machine Learning- Based Misbehavior Detection Systems for 5G and Beyond Vehicular Networks,

    A. Boualouache and T. Engel, “A Survey on Machine Learning- Based Misbehavior Detection Systems for 5G and Beyond Vehicular Networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1128–1172, 2023

    2023

  28. [37]

    Primal: Profit maximization avatar placement for mobile edge computing,

    X. Sun and N. Ansari, “Primal: Profit maximization avatar placement for mobile edge computing,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  29. [38]

    Is independent learning all you need in the starcraft multi-agent challenge?

    C. S. D. Witt, T. Gupta, D. Makoviichuk, V . Makoviychuk, P. H. S. Torr, M. Sun, and S. Whiteson, “Is independent learning all you need in the starcraft multi-agent challenge?” ArXiv, vol. abs/2011.09533, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  30. [39]

    A Trust-Based Malicious RSU Detection Mechanism in Edge-Enabled Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks,

    F. Siddiqua and M. Jahan, “A Trust-Based Malicious RSU Detection Mechanism in Edge-Enabled Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2407.11036, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [40]

    UA V-assisted technique for the detection of malicious and selfish nodes in V ANETs,

    C. A. Kerrache, A. Lakas, N. Lagraa, and E. Barka, “UA V-assisted technique for the detection of malicious and selfish nodes in V ANETs,” Vehicular Communications, vol. 11, pp. 1–11, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.