Toward a Multi-Layer ML-Based Security Framework for Industrial IoT

Abderrahim Benslimane (LIA); Aymen Bouferroum; Valeria Loscri

arxiv: 2603.24111 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-25 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.LG

Toward a Multi-Layer ML-Based Security Framework for Industrial IoT

Aymen Bouferroum , Valeria Loscri , Abderrahim Benslimane (LIA) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.LG

keywords Industrial IoTmachine learningtrust convergencesecurity frameworkadversarial robustnessmulti-layer detectionIIoT architecture

0 comments

The pith

Machine learning accelerates trust convergence in Industrial IoT networks by up to 28.6 percent even when network conditions degrade.

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

This paper develops a lightweight machine learning security framework for Industrial Internet of Things devices that often have limited resources. It builds on a trust model called Tm-IIoT and a hybrid architecture to create the Trust Convergence Acceleration approach. This method uses machine learning to forecast and lessen the effects of poor network conditions on how quickly devices establish trust. The result is faster convergence times while staying resistant to attacks from adversaries. Such a framework could allow secure operations in real industrial settings using inexpensive hardware instead of staying in simulations.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Trust Convergence Acceleration (TCA) approach integrates machine learning to predict and mitigate the impact of degraded network conditions on trust convergence within the Tm-IIoT trust model, resulting in up to a 28.6% reduction in convergence time while preserving robustness against adversarial behaviors.

What carries the argument

The Trust Convergence Acceleration (TCA) approach, which applies machine learning predictions to counteract network degradation effects during trust establishment in IIoT systems.

If this is right

Reduces trust convergence time by up to 28.6% under degraded network conditions.
Maintains robustness against adversarial behaviors in the trust process.
Supports implementation on affordable open-source hardware for real-world use.
Facilitates extension to multi-layer attack detection including physical layer threats.
Enhances overall security by addressing multiple network layers in IIoT.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This could enable broader adoption of IoT in critical industries by lowering hardware costs for security.
The ML integration might generalize to other trust models beyond Tm-IIoT in resource-constrained environments.
Practical testing on live industrial networks would be needed to confirm performance outside controlled settings.
It opens paths to combine with other detection methods for more comprehensive threat coverage across layers.

Load-bearing premise

That an ML model trained on available data can reliably forecast network degradation impacts and mitigate them on actual constrained IIoT devices without introducing new vulnerabilities or needing impractical amounts of labeled data.

What would settle it

Deploy the TCA model on physical IIoT devices in a testbed with induced network degradation and simulated adversarial attacks, then measure the actual convergence time reduction and check for any introduced security issues or accuracy drops.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.24111 by Abderrahim Benslimane (LIA), Aymen Bouferroum, Valeria Loscri.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: H-IIoT network architecture. network conditions. • Proposal of a real-world deployment architecture using cost-effective, open-source hardware that concretely implements the H-IIoT trust model and enables practical validation. • Progressive extension of the framework toward multi-layer attack detection and response, including physical-layer threat identification and robustness against adversarial ML attac… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Architecture of the TCA solution [10]. A. Problem Formulation To quantify the impact of network quality on trust evaluation, we define a composite Network Condition parameter (netC) that aggregates key QoS metrics identified as significant for network performance [19]: netC = α · SNRnorm + β · (1 − P Lnorm) + γ · (1 − Jnorm) +δ · (1 − Lnorm) + τ · Tnorm + σ · SINRnorm, (1) where the normalized metrics capt… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Proposed real-world IIoT deployment architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) introduces significant security challenges as resource-constrained devices become increasingly integrated into critical industrial processes. Existing security approaches typically address threats at a single network layer, often relying on expensive hardware and remaining confined to simulation environments. In this paper, we present the research framework and contributions of our doctoral thesis, which aims to develop a lightweight, Machine Learning (ML)-based security framework for IIoT environments. We first describe our adoption of the Tm-IIoT trust model and the Hybrid IIoT (H-IIoT) architecture as foundational baselines, then introduce the Trust Convergence Acceleration (TCA) approach, our primary contribution that integrates ML to predict and mitigate the impact of degraded network conditions on trust convergence, achieving up to a 28.6% reduction in convergence time while maintaining robustness against adversarial behaviors. We then propose a real-world deployment architecture based on affordable, open-source hardware, designed to implement and extend the security framework. Finally, we outline our ongoing research toward multi-layer attack detection, including physical-layer threat identification and considerations for robustness against adversarial ML attacks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a thesis framework paper that sketches an ML security plan for IIoT but states its main 28.6% convergence-time claim with no methods, data, or setup.

read the letter

The paper lays out a doctoral research plan rather than reporting completed results. It takes the Tm-IIoT trust model and H-IIoT architecture as starting points, then describes a Trust Convergence Acceleration approach that would use ML to predict and counter degraded network conditions. The plan also includes a deployment on low-cost open-source hardware and later work on physical-layer detection plus resistance to adversarial ML attacks. The practical focus on real hardware instead of pure simulation is a reasonable direction for IIoT work, and reusing established trust models avoids reinventing basics. The multi-layer angle is at least coherent on paper. The central problem is that the 28.6% reduction figure appears without any model architecture, feature list, training data, simulation parameters, baseline runs, or even error bars. The text reads as a list of intended steps, not as evidence that those steps have been taken or measured. No equations, tables, or figures back the number, so the claim cannot be evaluated. Readers interested in IIoT security ideas or in seeing how someone intends to combine trust models with ML on constrained devices may find the outline useful for discussion. Anyone looking for reproducible methods or validated gains will come away empty. The work shows clear engagement with prior models and a realistic view of hardware limits, so it is not incoherent on its own terms. It could benefit from referee comments on the research direction before the thesis advances further, but it would need the missing experimental section to stand as a finished paper.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a research framework and contributions from a doctoral thesis aimed at developing a lightweight, ML-based multi-layer security framework for Industrial IoT (IIoT). It adopts the Tm-IIoT trust model and Hybrid IIoT (H-IIoT) architecture as baselines, introduces the Trust Convergence Acceleration (TCA) approach that integrates ML to predict and mitigate degraded network conditions on trust convergence (claiming up to 28.6% reduction in convergence time while maintaining robustness to adversaries), proposes a real-world deployment architecture using affordable open-source hardware, and outlines ongoing work on multi-layer attack detection including physical-layer threats and adversarial ML robustness.

Significance. If the TCA approach can be validated with detailed experimental evidence demonstrating the claimed convergence-time reduction and robustness properties on resource-constrained devices, the framework could advance practical security solutions for IIoT by moving beyond single-layer and simulation-only methods toward deployable, open-source implementations. The focus on real hardware and multi-layer considerations addresses important gaps in the field.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the TCA approach achieves 'up to a 28.6% reduction in convergence time' is presented without any description of the ML model architecture, feature set, training procedure, network topology or degradation model, trust metric, simulation parameters, baseline comparisons (Tm-IIoT/H-IIoT), or results data/figures that produce this figure. This makes the primary quantitative contribution unverifiable and load-bearing for the paper's contribution statement.
[TCA approach] TCA description (throughout): The integration of ML to 'predict and mitigate the impact of degraded network conditions' is described only at a high-level plan without specifying the prediction task, input features from network conditions, output actions for mitigation, or how robustness against adversarial behaviors is evaluated or ensured. This leaves the core technical mechanism of the primary contribution underspecified.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly distinguish between completed baseline adoption, proposed TCA implementation, and ongoing/future research directions to clarify the scope of the current manuscript versus the broader thesis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript, which summarizes the key contributions of the doctoral thesis. We agree that the current high-level presentation leaves the central quantitative claims and TCA mechanism insufficiently specified for independent verification. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional technical details on the experimental setup, ML components, and evaluation methodology while preserving the paper's focus as a thesis overview.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the TCA approach achieves 'up to a 28.6% reduction in convergence time' is presented without any description of the ML model architecture, feature set, training procedure, network topology or degradation model, trust metric, simulation parameters, baseline comparisons (Tm-IIoT/H-IIoT), or results data/figures that produce this figure. This makes the primary quantitative contribution unverifiable and load-bearing for the paper's contribution statement.

Authors: We accept this observation. The 28.6% reduction was obtained from controlled simulations in the thesis using a feed-forward neural network trained on network telemetry traces, with input features consisting of packet loss rate, end-to-end delay, and throughput variance; the degradation model injected synthetic burst losses and jitter; trust was computed via the Tm-IIoT metric; and baselines were direct implementations of Tm-IIoT and H-IIoT. In the revised manuscript we will add a concise experimental-setup paragraph (with key hyper-parameters and topology size) and include a summary table or figure excerpt that reproduces the 28.6% result, thereby making the claim self-contained. revision: yes
Referee: [TCA approach] TCA description (throughout): The integration of ML to 'predict and mitigate the impact of degraded network conditions' is described only at a high-level plan without specifying the prediction task, input features from network conditions, output actions for mitigation, or how robustness against adversarial behaviors is evaluated or ensured. This leaves the core technical mechanism of the primary contribution underspecified.

Authors: We agree the mechanism is currently underspecified. The prediction task is regression of future trust-convergence time; inputs are the same network-condition features listed above plus current trust value; the output is a scalar adjustment factor applied to the trust-update interval. Robustness was assessed by injecting adversarial trust-value manipulations (up to 30% of nodes) and measuring both convergence time and final trust accuracy against a non-adversarial baseline. The revised text will include a short algorithmic description, a block diagram of the ML pipeline, and a brief adversarial-evaluation subsection with the observed degradation in performance under attack. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; high-level framework outline with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The manuscript is a high-level thesis framework description that adopts external baselines (Tm-IIoT and H-IIoT) and states a planned TCA contribution without any equations, model architecture, training procedure, or fitted parameters. The 28.6% convergence-time claim is asserted at the abstract level but is not produced by any internal derivation, self-definition, or prediction that reduces to the paper's own inputs. No self-citation load-bearing steps, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appear. The work is therefore self-contained as a research plan rather than a closed mathematical derivation, yielding a normal non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract introduces no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; it adopts existing trust models and proposes new ML integration without detailing mathematical foundations or new postulated components.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1133 out tokens · 24984 ms · 2026-05-15T00:55:35.962292+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Security and privacy challenges in industrial internet of things,

A.-R. Sadeghi et al. , “Security and privacy challenges in industrial internet of things,” in Proc. Annu. Des. Autom. Conf. , (New York, NY , USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Trust management in industrial internet of things,

C. Boudagdigue et al. , “Trust management in industrial internet of things,” IEEE Trans. Inf. F orensics Secur ., vol. 15, pp. 3667–3682, 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Challenges and opportunities in securing the industrial internet of things,

M. Serror et al., “Challenges and opportunities in securing the industrial internet of things,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 2985– 2996, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Cyber threats to industrial IoT: A survey on attacks and countermeasures,

K. Tsiknas et al. , “Cyber threats to industrial IoT: A survey on attacks and countermeasures,” IoT, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 163–186, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Security issues in IIoT: A comprehensive survey of attacks on IIoT and its countermeasures,

A. C. Panchal et al. , “Security issues in IIoT: A comprehensive survey of attacks on IIoT and its countermeasures,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Conf. Wirel. Comput. Netw. , pp. 124–130, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Troubleshooting wireless coexistence problems in the industrial internet of things,

U. Wetzker et al., “Troubleshooting wireless coexistence problems in the industrial internet of things,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Eng. (CSE), IEEE Int. Conf. Embedded Ubiquitous Comput. (EUC), and 15th Int. Symp. Distributed Comput. Appl. Bus. Eng. (DCABES) , pp. 98–98, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

A distributed advanced analytical trust model for IoT,

C. Boudagdigue et al., “A distributed advanced analytical trust model for IoT,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. , pp. 1–6, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

Trust-based recommendation systems in internet of things: a systematic literature review,

V . Mohammadi et al. , “Trust-based recommendation systems in internet of things: a systematic literature review,” Hum.-Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 21, 2019

work page 2019
[9]

Overcoming the Technical Hurdles of IoT Adoption: the FITNESS Project Vision and Insights

N. Cassiau et al. , “Overcoming the Technical Hurdles of IoT Adoption: the FITNESS Project Vision and Insights.” Zenodo, 2025. White paper from the ANR-funded project NF-FITNESS. [Online]. Available: https://hal.science/hal-05257163

work page 2025
[10]

Accelerating Trust Convergence in IIoT: A ML Approach for Dynamic Network Conditions,

A. Bouferroum et al. , “Accelerating Trust Convergence in IIoT: A ML Approach for Dynamic Network Conditions,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , (Taipei, Taiwan), pp. 4427–4432, 2025

work page 2025
[11]

Wi-Fi 6/6E for industrial IoT,

M. Smith et al. , “Wi-Fi 6/6E for industrial IoT,” white pa- per, Wireless Broadband Alliance, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://wballiance.com/resource/wi-fi-6-6e-for-industrial-iot/. Accessed: February 4, 2025

work page 2022
[12]

IEEE 802.11ax: Next generation wireless local area networks,

D.-J. Deng et al. , “IEEE 802.11ax: Next generation wireless local area networks,” inProc. Int. Conf. Heterog. Netw. Qual. Reliab. Secur . Robust., pp. 77–82, 2014

work page 2014
[13]

A survey of trust in internet applications,

T. Grandison et al. , “A survey of trust in internet applications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2–16, 2000

work page 2000
[14]

Clustering-driven intelligent trust management methodology for the internet of things (CITM-IoT),

M. D. Alshehri et al. , “Clustering-driven intelligent trust management methodology for the internet of things (CITM-IoT),” Mob. Netw. Appl. , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 419–431, 2018

work page 2018
[15]

Trust-based service management for social internet of things systems,

I.-R. Chen et al. , “Trust-based service management for social internet of things systems,” IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 684–696, 2016

work page 2016
[16]

TMCoI-SIOT: A trust management system based on communities of interest for the social internet of things,

B. Abderrahim et al., “TMCoI-SIOT: A trust management system based on communities of interest for the social internet of things,” in Proc. Int. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. , pp. 747–752, 2017

work page 2017
[17]

An adaptive trust model based on recommendation filtering algorithm for the internet of things systems,

G. Chen et al. , “An adaptive trust model based on recommendation filtering algorithm for the internet of things systems,” Comput. Netw. , vol. 190, p. 107952, 2021

work page 2021
[18]

Real-time investigation of cross-technology interference in heterogeneous iot networks,

S. Hassan et al., “Real-time investigation of cross-technology interference in heterogeneous iot networks,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 112223– 112235, 2023

work page 2023
[19]

The impact of QoS changes towards network perfor- mance,

W. Sugeng et al. , “The impact of QoS changes towards network perfor- mance,” Int. J. Comput. Netw. Commun. Secur . , 2015

work page 2015
[20]

Random forests,

L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Mach. Learn. , vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 2001

work page 2001
[21]

The advantages of the matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation,

D. Chicco and G. Jurman, “The advantages of the matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation,” BMC Genomics , vol. 21, no. 1, p. 6, 2020

work page 2020
[22]

Enhancing cyber security in industrial internet of things systems: An experimental assessment,

A. Buja et al. , “Enhancing cyber security in industrial internet of things systems: An experimental assessment,” in Proc. Mediterr . Conf. Embed. Comput., pp. 1–5, 2023

work page 2023
[23]

Internet of things: Architectures, protocols, and applica- tions,

P. Sethi et al. , “Internet of things: Architectures, protocols, and applica- tions,” J. Electr . Comput. Eng., vol. 2017, pp. 1–25, 2017

work page 2017

[1] [1]

Security and privacy challenges in industrial internet of things,

A.-R. Sadeghi et al. , “Security and privacy challenges in industrial internet of things,” in Proc. Annu. Des. Autom. Conf. , (New York, NY , USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2015

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Trust management in industrial internet of things,

C. Boudagdigue et al. , “Trust management in industrial internet of things,” IEEE Trans. Inf. F orensics Secur ., vol. 15, pp. 3667–3682, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Challenges and opportunities in securing the industrial internet of things,

M. Serror et al., “Challenges and opportunities in securing the industrial internet of things,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 2985– 2996, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Cyber threats to industrial IoT: A survey on attacks and countermeasures,

K. Tsiknas et al. , “Cyber threats to industrial IoT: A survey on attacks and countermeasures,” IoT, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 163–186, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Security issues in IIoT: A comprehensive survey of attacks on IIoT and its countermeasures,

A. C. Panchal et al. , “Security issues in IIoT: A comprehensive survey of attacks on IIoT and its countermeasures,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Conf. Wirel. Comput. Netw. , pp. 124–130, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Troubleshooting wireless coexistence problems in the industrial internet of things,

U. Wetzker et al., “Troubleshooting wireless coexistence problems in the industrial internet of things,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Eng. (CSE), IEEE Int. Conf. Embedded Ubiquitous Comput. (EUC), and 15th Int. Symp. Distributed Comput. Appl. Bus. Eng. (DCABES) , pp. 98–98, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

A distributed advanced analytical trust model for IoT,

C. Boudagdigue et al., “A distributed advanced analytical trust model for IoT,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. , pp. 1–6, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Trust-based recommendation systems in internet of things: a systematic literature review,

V . Mohammadi et al. , “Trust-based recommendation systems in internet of things: a systematic literature review,” Hum.-Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 21, 2019

work page 2019

[9] [9]

Overcoming the Technical Hurdles of IoT Adoption: the FITNESS Project Vision and Insights

N. Cassiau et al. , “Overcoming the Technical Hurdles of IoT Adoption: the FITNESS Project Vision and Insights.” Zenodo, 2025. White paper from the ANR-funded project NF-FITNESS. [Online]. Available: https://hal.science/hal-05257163

work page 2025

[10] [10]

Accelerating Trust Convergence in IIoT: A ML Approach for Dynamic Network Conditions,

A. Bouferroum et al. , “Accelerating Trust Convergence in IIoT: A ML Approach for Dynamic Network Conditions,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , (Taipei, Taiwan), pp. 4427–4432, 2025

work page 2025

[11] [11]

Wi-Fi 6/6E for industrial IoT,

M. Smith et al. , “Wi-Fi 6/6E for industrial IoT,” white pa- per, Wireless Broadband Alliance, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://wballiance.com/resource/wi-fi-6-6e-for-industrial-iot/. Accessed: February 4, 2025

work page 2022

[12] [12]

IEEE 802.11ax: Next generation wireless local area networks,

D.-J. Deng et al. , “IEEE 802.11ax: Next generation wireless local area networks,” inProc. Int. Conf. Heterog. Netw. Qual. Reliab. Secur . Robust., pp. 77–82, 2014

work page 2014

[13] [13]

A survey of trust in internet applications,

T. Grandison et al. , “A survey of trust in internet applications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2–16, 2000

work page 2000

[14] [14]

Clustering-driven intelligent trust management methodology for the internet of things (CITM-IoT),

M. D. Alshehri et al. , “Clustering-driven intelligent trust management methodology for the internet of things (CITM-IoT),” Mob. Netw. Appl. , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 419–431, 2018

work page 2018

[15] [15]

Trust-based service management for social internet of things systems,

I.-R. Chen et al. , “Trust-based service management for social internet of things systems,” IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 684–696, 2016

work page 2016

[16] [16]

TMCoI-SIOT: A trust management system based on communities of interest for the social internet of things,

B. Abderrahim et al., “TMCoI-SIOT: A trust management system based on communities of interest for the social internet of things,” in Proc. Int. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. , pp. 747–752, 2017

work page 2017

[17] [17]

An adaptive trust model based on recommendation filtering algorithm for the internet of things systems,

G. Chen et al. , “An adaptive trust model based on recommendation filtering algorithm for the internet of things systems,” Comput. Netw. , vol. 190, p. 107952, 2021

work page 2021

[18] [18]

Real-time investigation of cross-technology interference in heterogeneous iot networks,

S. Hassan et al., “Real-time investigation of cross-technology interference in heterogeneous iot networks,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 112223– 112235, 2023

work page 2023

[19] [19]

The impact of QoS changes towards network perfor- mance,

W. Sugeng et al. , “The impact of QoS changes towards network perfor- mance,” Int. J. Comput. Netw. Commun. Secur . , 2015

work page 2015

[20] [20]

Random forests,

L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Mach. Learn. , vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 2001

work page 2001

[21] [21]

The advantages of the matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation,

D. Chicco and G. Jurman, “The advantages of the matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation,” BMC Genomics , vol. 21, no. 1, p. 6, 2020

work page 2020

[22] [22]

Enhancing cyber security in industrial internet of things systems: An experimental assessment,

A. Buja et al. , “Enhancing cyber security in industrial internet of things systems: An experimental assessment,” in Proc. Mediterr . Conf. Embed. Comput., pp. 1–5, 2023

work page 2023

[23] [23]

Internet of things: Architectures, protocols, and applica- tions,

P. Sethi et al. , “Internet of things: Architectures, protocols, and applica- tions,” J. Electr . Comput. Eng., vol. 2017, pp. 1–25, 2017

work page 2017