CSPM EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 4 (2025) Security and Safety, 4 (2025) 2024014 References
Open Access
Review
Issue
Security and Safety
Volume 4, 2025
Article Number 2024014
Number of page(s) 51
Section Industrial Control
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sands/2024014
Published online 30 January 2025
  1. Breque M, De Nul L and Petridis A. Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. Luxembourg, LU: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2021; 46. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tallat R, Hawbani A and Wang X et al. Navigating industry 5.0: A survey of key enabling technologies, trends, challenges, and opportunities. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2023; 26: 1080. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gladysz B, Tran T-a and Romero D et al. Current development on the operator 4.0 and transition towards the operator 5.0: A systematic literature review in light of industry 5.0. J Manuf Syst 2023; 70: 160–185. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baig MI and Yadegaridehkordi E. Industry 5.0 applications for sustainability: A systematic review and future research directions. Sustain Dev 2024; 32: 662–681. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Maddikunta PKR, Pham Q-V and Prabadevi B et al. Industry 5.0: A survey on enabling technologies and potential applications. J Ind Inf Integr 2022; 26: 100257. [Google Scholar]
  6. Valette E, El-Haouzi HB and Demesure G. Industry 5.0 and its technologies: A systematic literature review upon the human place into IoT- and CPS-based industrial systems. Comput Ind Eng 2023; 184: 109426. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Van Erp T, Carvalho NGP and Gerolamo MC et al. Industry 5.0: A new strategy framework for sustainability management and beyond. J Clean Prod 2024; 461: 142271. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Shaikh ZA, Hajjej F and Uslu YD et al. A new trend in cryptographic information security for industry 5.0: A systematic review. In: IEEE Access, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  9. Abishek BA, Kavyashree T and Jayalakshmi R et al. Collaborative robots and cyber security in Industry 5.0. In: Proceedings of the 2023 2nd International Conference on Advancements in Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computing and Automation (ICAECA), 2023, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Navale GS, Madala R and Managuli M et al. Research and innovation in next generation security and privacy in Industry 5.0 IoT. In: Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I), 2023; 6: 1384–1390. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lee R, Kim M and Li D et al. Fedl2p: Federated learning to personalize. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2024; 36 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ramírez T, Calabuig-Barbero E and Mora H et al. Federated learning for industry 5.0: A state-of-the-art review. In: International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence, Springer, 2023, 60–66. [Google Scholar]
  13. Li T, Sahu AK and Talwalkar A et al. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2020; 37: 50–60. [Google Scholar]
  14. Adel A. Future of industry 5.0 in society: Human-centric solutions, challenges, and prospective research areas. J Cloud Comput 2022; 11: 1–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Khan F, Kumar RL and Abidi MH et al. Federated split learning model for industry 5.0: A data poisoning defense for edge computing. Electronics 2022; 11: 2393. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Singh SK, Yang LT and Park JH. Fusionfedblock: Fusion of blockchain and federated learning to preserve privacy in industry 5.0. Inform Fusion 2023; 90: 233–240. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Coelho P, Bessa C and Landeck J et al. Industry 5.0: The arising of a concept. Procedia Comput Sci 2023; 217: 1137–1144. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Leng J, Sha W and Wang B et al. Industry 5.0: Prospect and retrospect. J Manuf Syst 2022; 65: 279–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rasha A-H, Li T and Huang W et al. Federated learning in smart cities: Privacy and security survey. Inform Sci 2023; 632: 833–857. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Yar M. Cybercrime and society, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tallat R, Hawbani A and Wang X et al. Navigating industry 5.0: A survey of key enabling technologies trends challenges and opportunities, IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang C, Xie Y and Bai H et al. A survey on federated learning. Knowl-Based Syst 2021; 216: 106775. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakhan A, Mohammed MA and Kadry S et al. Federated learning-aware multi-objective modeling and blockchain-enable system for IIoT applications. Comput Electr Eng 2022; 100: 107839. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferrag MA, Friha O and Hamouda D et al. Edge-iiotset: A new comprehensive realistic cyber security dataset of IoT and IIoT applications for centralized and federated learning. IEEE Access 2022; 10: 40281–40306. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hao M, Li H and Luo X et al. Efficient and privacy-enhanced federated learning for industrial artificial intelligence. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2019; 16: 6532–6542. [Google Scholar]
  26. Briggs C, Fan Z and Andras P. A review of privacy-preserving federated learning for the Internet-of-things. In: Federated Learning Systems: Towards Next-Generation AI, 2021, pp 21–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee G and Shin S-Y. Reliability and performance assessment of federated learning on clinical benchmark data, 2020, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11756]. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu Y, James J and Kang J et al. Privacy-preserving traffic flow prediction: A federated learning approach. IEEE Internet Things J 2020; 7: 7751–7763. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wu Q, Chen X and Zhou Z et al. FedHome: Cloud-edge based personalized federated learning for in-home health monitoring. IEEE Trans Mobile Comput 2020; 21: 2818–2832. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nishio T and Yonetani R. Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge. In: ICC 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  31. Vaswani A, Shazeer N and Parmar N et al. Attention is all you need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, Vol. 30. [Google Scholar]
  32. Brown T, Mann B and Ryder N et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020, Vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901. [Google Scholar]
  33. Achiam J, Adler S and Agarwal S et al. GPT-4 technical report, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774]. [Google Scholar]
  34. Touvron H, Lavril T and Izacard G et al. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971]. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim CY, Lee CP and Mutlu B. Understanding large-language model (LLM)-powered human-robot interaction, 2024, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03217]. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lyu H, Jiang S and Zeng H et al. LLM-Rec: Personalized recommendation via prompting large language models, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15780]. [Google Scholar]
  37. Eftimov T, Popovski G and Petković M et al. COVID-19 pandemic changes the food consumption patterns. Trends Food Sci Technol 2020; 104: 268–272. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu C, Yang S and Xu Q et al. Spatial-temporal large language model for traffic prediction, 2024, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10134]. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bai M, Zhou Z and Wang R et al. Houyi: An open-source large language model specially designed for renewable energy and carbon neutrality field, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01414]. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rillig MC, Ågerstrand M, Bi K et al. Risks and benefits of large language models for the environment. Environ Sci Technol 2023; 57: 3464–3466. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Awasthi A, Gupta N and Samanta B et al. Bootstrapping multilingual semantic parsers using large language models 2023. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ye Y, You H and Du J. Improved trust in human-robot collaboration with ChatGPT. IEEE Access, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  43. Devlin J, Chang M-W and Lee K et al. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2018, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805]. [Google Scholar]
  44. Irfan B, Kuoppamäki S-M and Skantze G. Between reality and delusion: Challenges of applying large language models to companion robots for open-domain dialogues with older adults, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yamazaki T, Yoshikawa K and Kawamoto T et al. Building a hospitable and reliable dialogue system for android robots: a scenario-based approach with large language models. Adv Robot 2023; 37: 1364–1381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kolides A, Nawaz A and Rathor A et al. Artificial intelligence foundation and pre-trained models: Fundamentals, applications, opportunities, and social impacts. Simul Model Pract Theory 2023; 126: 102754. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wolf T, Debut L and Sanh V et al. Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing, 2019, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03771]. [Google Scholar]
  48. Google Cloud. Cloud natural language. Available from: https://cloud.google.com/natural-language, Accessed: Sep. 12, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhong L and Wang Z. A study on robustness and reliability of large language model code generation, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10335]. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hong S, Seo J and Hong S et al. Large language models are frame-level directors for zero-shot text-to-video generation, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14330]. [Google Scholar]
  51. Fraile F, Psarommatis F, Alarcón F and Joan J. A methodological framework for designing personalised training programs to support personnel upskilling in industry 5.0. Computers 2023; 12: 224. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kasneci E, Seßler S, Küchemann M et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn Indiv Diff 2023; 103: 102274. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Verma A, Bhattacharya P and Madhani N et al. Blockchain for industry 5.0: Vision, opportunities, key enablers, and future directions. IEEE Access 2022; 10: 69160–69199. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Bodkhe U, Tanwar S and Parekh K et al. Blockchain for industry 4.0: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2020; 8: 79764–79800. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Benchaya G, Gans J and Ubacht J et al. Governance and societal impact of blockchain-based self-sovereign identities. Policy Soc 2022; 41: 402–413. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vacca A, Di Sorbo CA and Visaggio CA et al. A systematic literature review of blockchain and smart contract development: Techniques, tools, and open challenges. J Syst Softw 2021; 174: 110891. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. Angrish B, Craver B and Hasan M et al. A case study for blockchain in manufacturing: “FabRec”: A prototype for peer-to-peer network of manufacturing nodes. Procedia Manuf 2018; 26: 1180–1192. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Li Z, Liu L and Barenji AV et al. Cloud-based manufacturing blockchain: Secure knowledge sharing for injection mould redesign. Procedia Cirp 2018; 72: 961–966. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. Barenji AV, Li Z and Wang WM. Blockchain cloud manufacturing: Shop floor and machine level. In: Smart SysTech 2018; European Conference on Smart Objects, Systems and Technologies, VDE, 2018, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kumar NM. Blockchain: Enabling a wide range of services in distributed energy system. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 2018; 7: 701–704. [Google Scholar]
  61. Truby J. Decarbonizing bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of blockchain technologies and digital currencies. Energy Res Soc Sci 2018; 44: 399–410. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  62. Andoni M, Robu V and Flynn D et al. Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019; 100: 143–174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  63. Goranović A, Meisel M, Fotiadis L et al. Blockchain applications in microgrids an overview of current projects and concepts. In: IECON 2017-43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE 2017:6153–6158. [Google Scholar]
  64. Caro MP, Ali MS and Vecchio M et al. Blockchain-based traceability in agri-food supply chain management: A practical implementation. In: 2018 IoT Vertical and Topical Summit on Agriculture-Tuscany (IOT Tuscany), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  65. Weber I, Xu X and Riveret R et al. Untrusted business process monitoring and execution using blockchain. In: Business Process Management: 14th International Conference, BPM 2016 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 18-22, 2016, Proceedings 14, Springer 2016, pp. 329–347. [Google Scholar]
  66. Guerreiro S, van Kervel SJ and Babkin E. Towards devising an architectural framework for enterprise operating systems. In: ICSOFT 2013: 578–585. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang C-X, You X and Gao X et al. On the road to 6G: Visions, requirements, key technologies, and testbeds. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2023; 25: 905–974. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  68. Maier M. 6G as if people mattered: From industry 4.0 toward society 5.0. In: 2021 International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), IEEE, 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  69. Maier M, Chowdhury M and Rimal BP et al. The tactile internet: Vision, recent progress, and open challenges. IEEE Commun Mag 2016; 54: 138–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  70. Maier M, Ebrahimzadeh A and Chowdhury M. The tactile internet: Automation or augmentation of the human? IEEE Access 2018; 6: 41607–41618. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  71. Maier M and Ebrahimzadeh A. Towards immersive tactile internet experiences: Low-latency FiWi enhanced mobile networks with edge intelligence. J Opt Commun Netw 2019; 11: B10–B25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  72. Haddadin S, Johannsmeier L and Ledezma FD. Tactile robots as a central embodiment of the tactile internet. Proc IEEE 2018; 107: 471–487. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kolovou G, Oteafy S and Chatzimisios P. A remote surgery use case for the IEEE p1918.1 tactile internet standard. In: ICC 2021-IEEE International Conference on Communications, IEEE 2021, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  74. Tekbıyık A, Ekti AR and Kurt GK et al. Terahertz band communication systems: Challenges, novelties, and standardization efforts. Phys Commun 2019; 35: 100700. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  75. Chowdhury MZ, Hasan MK and Shahjalal M et al. Optical wireless hybrid networks: Trends, opportunities, challenges, and research directions. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2020; 22: 930–966. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  76. Ghassemlooy Z, Arnon S and Uysal M et al. Emerging optical wireless communications-advances and challenges. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 2015; 33: 1738–1749. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  77. Viswanathan H and Mogensen PE. Communications in the 6G era. IEEE Access 2020; 8: 57063–57074. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  78. Ammar HA, Adve R and Shahbazpanahi S et al. User-centric cell-free massive MIMO networks: A survey of opportunities, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2021; 24: 611–652. [Google Scholar]
  79. Yu Q, Zhou H and Chen J et al. A fully-decoupled RAN architecture for 6G inspired by neurotransmission. J Commun Inform Networks 2019; 4: 15–23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pattnaik SK, Samal SR and Bandopadhaya S et al. Future wireless communication technology towards 6G IoT: An application-based analysis of IoT in real-time location monitoring of employees inside underground mines by using BLE. Sensors 2022; 22: 3438. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Padhi PK and Charrua-Santos F. 6G enabled industrial internet of everything: Towards a theoretical framework. Appl Syst Innov 2021; 4: 11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  82. Mukherjee A, Goswami P and Khan MA et al. Energy-efficient resource allocation strategy in massive IoT for industrial 6G applications. IEEE Internet Things J 2020; 8: 5194–5201. [Google Scholar]
  83. Xu H, Wu J and Pan Q et al. A survey on digital twin for industrial internet of things: Applications, technologies, and tools. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2023. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lv Z. Digital twins in industry 5.0. Research 2023; 6: 0071. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Dang HV, Tatipamula M and Nguyen HX. Cloud-based digital twinning for structural health monitoring using deep learning. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2021; 18: 3820–3830. [Google Scholar]
  86. Hong Y and Wu J. Fuzzing digital twin with graphical visualization of electronic avs provable test for consumer safety. IEEE Trans Consumer Electron 2024; 70: 4633–44. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  87. Chen Y, Yang O and Sampat P et al. Digital twins in pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical manufacturing: A literature review. Processes 2020; 8: 1088. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  88. Wang Y, Ren W and Li Y et al. Complex product manufacturing and operation and maintenance integration based on digital twin. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2021; 117: 361–381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  89. Zhu Z, Xi X and Xu X et al. Digital twin-driven machining process for thin-walled part manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 2021; 59: 453–466. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  90. Choi S, Woo J and Kim J et al. Digital twin-based integrated monitoring system: Korean application cases. Sensors 2022; 22: 5450. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Cao X, Zhao G and Xiao W. Digital twin–oriented real-time cutting simulation for intelligent computer numerical control machining. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 2022; 236: 5–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  92. Moshood TD, Nawanir G and Sorooshian S et al. Digital twins driven supply chain visibility within logistics: A new paradigm for future logistics. Appl Syst Innov 2021; 4: 29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  93. Abideen AZ, Sundram VKP and Pyeman J et al. Digital twin integrated reinforced learning in supply chain and logistics. Logistics 2021; 5: 84. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  94. Defraeye T, Shrivastava C and Berry T et al. Digital twins are coming: Will we need them in supply chains of fresh horticultural produce? Trends Food Sci Technol 2021; 109: 245–258. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  95. Schou C, Andersen R and Chrysostomou D et al. Skill-based instruction of collaborative robots in industrial settings. Robotics Comput-Integr Manuf 2018; 53: 72–80. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  96. Gualtieri L, Palomba I and Merati FA et al. Design of human-centered collaborative assembly workstations for the improvement of operators’ physical ergonomics and production efficiency: A case study. Sustainability 2020; 12: 3606. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  97. Proia S, Carli R and Cavone G et al. A literature review on control techniques for collaborative robotics in industrial applications. In: 2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 2021, pp. 591–596. [Google Scholar]
  98. Matheson E, Minto R and Zampieri EGG et al. Human-robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: A review. Robotics 2019; 8: 100. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  99. Holland J, Kingston L and McCarthy C et al. Service robots in the healthcare sector. Robotics 2021; 10: 47. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  100. Bertelsen A, Scorza D and Cortés C et al. Collaborative robots for surgical applications, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  101. Lytridis C, Kaburlasos V and Pachidis M et al. An overview of cooperative robotics in agriculture. Agronomy 2021; 2: 524–535. [Google Scholar]
  102. Lytridis C, Bazinas C and Kalathas I et al. Cooperative grape harvesting using heterogeneous autonomous robots. Robotics 2023; 12: 147. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  103. Tziolas E, Karapatzak E and Kalathas I et al. Assessing the economic performance of multipurpose collaborative robots toward skillful and sustainable viticultural practices. Sustainability 2023; 15: 3866. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  104. Raffik R, Mayukha S and Hemchander J et al. Autonomous weeding robot for organic farming fields. In: 2021 International Conference on Advancements in Electrical Electronics Communication Computing and Automation (ICAECA), 2021, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  105. Li Y, Liu Q and Chen X et al. Integrated safety and security enhancement of connected automated vehicles using DHR architecture. Secur Saf 2023; 2: 2022009. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ding SX. A note on diagnosis and performance degradation detection in automatic control systems towards functional safety and cyber security. Secur Saf 2022; 1: 2022004. [Google Scholar]
  107. Yang H, Fang M, Liu J. Achieving linear speedup with partial worker participation in non-IID federated learning, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11203]. [Google Scholar]
  108. Almutairi S and Barnawi A. Federated learning vulnerabilities, threats, and defenses: A systematic review and future directions. Internet Things 2023; 100947. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  109. Bouacida N and Mohapatra P. Vulnerabilities in federated learning. IEEE Access 2021; 9: 63229–63249. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  110. Zhao WX, Zhou K and Li J et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 2023. [Google Scholar]
  111. Hadi MU, Qureshi R and Shah M et al. Large language models: a comprehensive survey of its applications, challenges, limitations, and future prospects, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  112. Bang Y, Cahyawijaya S and Lee N et al. A multi-task multilingual multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04023]. [Google Scholar]
  113. Hada DV and Shevade SK. Rexplug: Explainable recommendation using plug-and-play language model. In: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2021, pp. 81–91. [Google Scholar]
  114. Gao Y, Sheng T and Xiang Y et al. Chat-Rec: Towards interactive and explainable LLMs-augmented recommender system, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14524]. [Google Scholar]
  115. Shin D. The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 2021; 146: 102551. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  116. Lim WYB, Luong NC and Hoang DT et al. Federated learning in mobile edge networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2020; 22: 2031–2063. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  117. Bonawitz K, Eichner H and Grieskamp W et al. Towards federated learning at scale: System design. Proc Mach Learn Syst 2019; 1: 374–388. [Google Scholar]
  118. Dhar S, Guo J and Liu J et al. A survey of on-device machine learning: An algorithms and learning theory perspective. ACM Trans Internet Things 2021; 2: 1–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  119. Schwartz R, Dodge J and Smith NA et al. Green AI. Commun ACM 2020; 63: 54–63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  120. Fergusson G, Fitzgerald C and Frascella M et al. Contributions by. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zhi X and Wang J. AI-based prediction of high-impact weather and climate extremes under global warming: A perspective from the large-scale circulations and teleconnections. Front Earth Sci 2023; 11: 1126381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  122. Shen L-H, Feng K-T and Hanzo L. Five facets of 6G: Research challenges and opportunities. ACM Comput Surveys 2023; 55: 1–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  123. Mavridou A, Laszka A. Designing secure Ethereum smart contracts: A finite state machine based approach. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 22nd International Conference, FC 2018, Nieuwpoort, Curacao, February 26–March 2, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 22. Springer, 2018, pp. 523–540. [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhang Y and Wen J. The IoT electric business model: Using blockchain technology for the internet of things. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 2017; 10: 983–994. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  125. Leng J, Zhou M and Zhao JL et al. Blockchain security: A survey of techniques and research directions. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 2022; 15: 2490–2510. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  126. Yu X, Li G and Lu W. Power consumption based on 5G communication. In: 2021 IEEE 5th Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC), IEEE, 2021, Vol. 5, pp. 910–914. [Google Scholar]
  127. Chen Y, Chen H and Zhang Y et al. A survey on blockchain systems: Attacks, defenses, and privacy preservation. High-Conf Comput 2022; 2: 100048. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  128. Khalid A, Kirisci P and Ghrairi Z et al. Towards implementing safety and security concepts for human-robot collaboration in the context of Industry 4.0. In: 39th International MATADOR Conference on Advanced Manufacturing, 2017, Vol. 2, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  129. Gleirscher M, Johnson N and Karachristou P et al. Challenges in the safety-security co-assurance of collaborative industrial robots. In: The 21st Century Industrial Robot: When Tools Become Collaborators, 2022, pp. 191–214. [Google Scholar]
  130. Pang G, Yang G and Pang Z. Review of robot skin: A potential enabler for safe collaboration immersive teleoperation and affective interaction of future collaborative robots. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics 2021; 3: 681–700. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  131. Keshvarparast A, Battini D and Battaia O et al. Collaborative robots in manufacturing and assembly systems: literature review and future research agenda. J Intell Manuf 2023; 35: 2065–2118. [Google Scholar]
  132. Wang Y, Su Z, Guo S et al. A survey on digital twins: Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and future prospects. IEEE Internet Things J 2023; 10: 14965–14987. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  133. Kaelbling LP. The foundation of efficient robot learning. Science 2020; 369: 915–916. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Bisen AS and Payal H. Collaborative robots for industrial tasks: A review. Mater Today Proc 2022; 52: 500–504. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  135. Liu L, Guo F and Zou Z et al. Application development and future opportunities of collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing: A literature review. Int J Hum–Comput Interact 2024; 40: 915–932. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  136. Li T, Wang H and He D et al. Synchronized provable data possession based on blockchain for digital twin. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 2022; 17: 472–485. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  137. Biggio B, Nelson B, Laskov P. Poisoning attacks against support vector machines, 2012, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6389]. [Google Scholar]
  138. Blanchard P,El Mhamdi EM and Guerraoui R et al. Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2017; 30. [Google Scholar]
  139. Xie C, Huang K and Chen P-Y et al. DBA: Distributed backdoor attacks against federated learning. In: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  140. Schuster R, Song C and Tromer E et al. You autocomplete me: Poisoning vulnerabilities in neural code completion. In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2021, pp. 1559–1575. [Google Scholar]
  141. Wan A, Wallace E and Shen S et al. Poisoning language models during instruction tuning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 2023, 35413–35425. [Google Scholar]
  142. Yang H, Xiang K and Li H et al. A comprehensive overview of backdoor attacks in large language models within communication networks, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14367]. [Google Scholar]
  143. Li Y, Liu S and Chen K et al. Multi-target backdoor attacks for code pre-trained models, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08350]. [Google Scholar]
  144. Derner E, Batistič K and Zahálka J et al. A security risk taxonomy for large language models, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11415]. [Google Scholar]
  145. Shumailov I, Zhao Y and Bates D et al. Sponge examples: Energy-latency attacks on neural networks. In: 2021 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), IEEE, 2021, pp 212–231. [Google Scholar]
  146. Melis L, Song C and De Cristofaro E et al. Exploiting unintended feature leakage in collaborative learning. In: 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), IEEE, 2019, pp. 691–706. [Google Scholar]
  147. Jatain D, Singh V and Dahiya N. A contemplative perspective on federated machine learning: Taxonomy, threats, & vulnerability assessment and challenges. J King Saud Univ-Comput Inform Sci 2022; 34: 6681–6698. [Google Scholar]
  148. Song M, Wang Z and Zhang Z et al. Analyzing user-level privacy attack against federated learning. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 2020; 38: 2430–2444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  149. Fu W, Wang H and Gao C et al. Practical membership inference attacks against fine-tuned large language models via self-prompt calibration, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06062]. [Google Scholar]
  150. Mireshghallah F, Goyal K and Uniyal A et al. Quantifying privacy risks of masked language models using membership inference attacks, 2022, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.03929]. [Google Scholar]
  151. Duan J, Kong F and Wang S et al. Are diffusion models vulnerable to membership inference attacks? In: International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR 2023:8717–8730. [Google Scholar]
  152. Pan X, Zhang M and Ji S et al. Privacy risks of general-purpose language models. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1314–1331. [Google Scholar]
  153. Song C and Raghunathan A. Information leakage in embedding models. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2020, pp. 377–390. [Google Scholar]
  154. Li H, Song Y, Fan L. You don’t know my favorite color: Preventing dialogue representations from revealing speakers’ private personas, 2020, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10228]. [Google Scholar]
  155. Zhang Z, Wen J and Huang M. Ethicist: Targeted training data extraction through loss smoothed soft prompting and calibrated confidence estimation, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04401]. [Google Scholar]
  156. Parikh R, Dupuy C and Gupta R. Canary extraction in natural language understanding models, 2022, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13920]. [Google Scholar]
  157. Yang Z, Zhao Z and Wang C et al. What do code models memorize? An empirical study on large language models of code, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.09932]. [Google Scholar]
  158. Singh R and Sicker D. THz communications – A boon and/or bane for security, privacy, and national security. In: TPRC48: The 48th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  159. Nguyen V-L, Lin P-C and Cheng B-C et al. Security and privacy for 6G: A survey on prospective technologies and challenges. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2021; 23: 2384–2428. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  160. Wohrer M and Zdun U. Smart contracts: Security patterns in the Ethereum ecosystem and Solidity. In: 2018 International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE), IEEE, 2018, 2–8. [Google Scholar]
  161. Maggi F, Quarta D and Pogliani M et al. Rogue robots: Testing the limits of an industrial robot’s security. Trend Micro Politecnico di Milano Tech. Rep., 2017, pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  162. Alcaraz C and Lopez J. Digital twin: A comprehensive survey of security threats. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2022; 24: 1475–1503. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  163. Wang Y, Su Z and Ni J et al. Blockchain-empowered space-air-ground integrated networks: Opportunities, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2021; 24: 160–209. [Google Scholar]
  164. Wang Y, Peng H and Su Z et al. A platform-free proof of federated learning consensus mechanism for sustainable blockchains. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 2022; 40: 3305–3324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  165. Hu H, Salcic Z and Sun L et al. Membership inference attacks on machine learning: A survey. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 2022; 54: 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  166. Homoliak I, Venugopalan S and Reijsbergen D et al. The security reference architecture for blockchains: Toward a standardized model for studying vulnerabilities, threats, and defenses. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2021; 23: 341–390. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  167. Li C, Li G and Varshney PK. Federated learning with soft clustering. IEEE Internet Things J 2021; 9: 7773–7782. [Google Scholar]
  168. Li H, Luo L and Wang H. Federated learning on non-independent and identically distributed data. In: Third International Conference on Machine Learning and Computer Application (ICMLCA 2022), Vol. 12636, SPIE 2023, 154–162. [Google Scholar]
  169. Li S, Cheng Y and Liu Y et al. Abnormal client behavior detection in federated learning, 2019, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09933]. [Google Scholar]
  170. Meng L, Wei Y and Pan R et al. Vadaf: Visualization for abnormal client detection and analysis in federated learning. ACM Trans Interactive Intelligent Syst (TiiS) 2021; 11: 1–23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  171. Guo H, Mao Y and He X et al. Improving federated learning through abnormal client detection and incentive. CMES-Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences 2024, 139. [Google Scholar]
  172. Pokhrel SR and Choi J. Federated learning with blockchain for autonomous vehicles: Analysis and design challenges. IEEE Trans Commun 2020; 68: 4734–4746. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  173. Wang Y, Su Z and Zhang N et al. Learning in the air: Secure federated learning for UAV-assisted crowdsensing. IEEE Trans Netw Sci Eng 2020; 8: 1055–1069. [Google Scholar]
  174. Roy AG, Siddiqui S and Pölsterl S et al. BrainTorrent: A peer-to-peer environment for decentralized federated learning, 2019, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.06731] [Google Scholar]
  175. Du N, Huang Y and Dai AM et al. GLaM: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR 2022:5547–5569. [Google Scholar]
  176. Lee K, Ippolito D and Nystrom A et al. Deduplicating training data makes language models better. In: Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 2022, 8424–8445. [Google Scholar]
  177. Kandpal N, Wallace E and Raffel C. Deduplicating training data mitigates privacy risks in language models. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR 2022:10697–10707. [Google Scholar]
  178. Le Scao T, Fan A and Akiki C et al. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model 2022. [Google Scholar]
  179. Yao Y, Wang P and Tian B et al. Editing large language models: Problems, methods, and opportunities, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13172]. [Google Scholar]
  180. Schick T, Dwivedi-Yu J, Dessí R et al. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2024; 36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  181. Nakano R, Hilton J and Balaji S et al. WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09332]. [Google Scholar]
  182. Weston J, Dinan E and Miller AH. Retrieve and refine: Improved sequence generation models for dialogue, 2018, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04776]. [Google Scholar]
  183. Ferrara E. Should ChatGPT be biased? Challenges and risks of bias in large language models, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03738]. [Google Scholar]
  184. Thorne J, Vlachos A and Christodoulopoulos C et al. FEVER: A large-scale dataset for fact extraction and verification, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05355]. [Google Scholar]
  185. Zhao H, Chen H and Yang F et al. Explainability for large language models: A survey. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2024; 15: 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  186. Wu X, Zhao H and Zhu Y et al. Usable XAI: 10 strategies towards exploiting explainability in the LLM era, 2024, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08946]. [Google Scholar]
  187. Li T, Sahu AK and Talwalkar A et al. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2020; 37: 50–60. [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
  188. Sprague MR, Jalalirad A and Scavuzzo M et al. Asynchronous federated learning for geospatial applications. In: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer, 2018, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  189. Yang K, Jiang T and Shi Y et al. Federated learning via over-the-air computation. IEEE Trans Wireless Commun 2020; 19: 2022–2035. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  190. Lin Y, Han S, Mao H et al. Deep gradient compression: Reducing the communication bandwidth for distributed training, 2017, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01887]. [Google Scholar]
  191. Liu Y, Zhang X and Kang Y et al. FedBCD: A communication-efficient collaborative learning framework for distributed features. IEEE Trans Signal Process 2022; 70: 4277–4290. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  192. Tao Z and Li Q. eSGD: Communication efficient distributed deep learning on the edge. In: USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Edge Computing (HotEdge 18), 2018. [Google Scholar]
  193. Tang S, Zhou W and Chen L et al. Battery-constrained federated edge learning in UAV-enabled IoT for B5G/6G networks. Phys Commun 2021; 47: 101381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  194. Yao X, Huang C and Sun L. Two-stream federated learning: Reduce the communication costs. In: 2018 IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP), IEEE, 2018, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  195. Li D, Wang X and Kong D. DeepRebirth: Accelerating deep neural network execution on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2018; 32. [Google Scholar]
  196. Balakrishnan R, Akdeniz M and Dhakal S et al. Resource management and fairness for federated learning over wireless edge networks. In: 2020 IEEE 21st International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), IEEE, 2020, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  197. Laurençon H, Saulnier L, Wang T et al. The BigScience ROOTS Corpus: A 1.6 TB composite multilingual dataset. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2022; 35: 31809–31826. [Google Scholar]
  198. Hu EJ, Shen Y and Wallis P et al. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685]. [Google Scholar]
  199. Li XL and Liang P. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00190]. [Google Scholar]
  200. Pagliardini M, Paliotta D and Jaggi M et al. Faster causal attention over large sequences through sparse flash attention, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01160]. [Google Scholar]
  201. Yao Z, Yazdani Aminabadi R and Zhang M et al. ZeroQuant: Efficient and affordable post-training quantization for large-scale transformers. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2022; 35: 27168–27183. [Google Scholar]
  202. Liu S and Wang Z. Ten lessons we have learned in the new “sparseland”: A short handbook for sparse neural network researchers, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02596]. [Google Scholar]
  203. Pi Z and Khan F. An introduction to millimeter-wave mobile broadband systems. IEEE Commun Mag 2011; 49: 101–107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  204. Zhang Z, Xiao Y and Ma Z et al. 6G wireless networks: Vision, requirements, architecture, and key technologies. IEEE Veh Technol Mag 2019; 14: 28–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  205. Shen L-H and Feng K-T. Mobility-aware subband and beam resource allocation schemes for millimeter wave wireless networks. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2020; 69: 11893–11908. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  206. Kaloxylos A. A survey and an analysis of network slicing in 5G networks. IEEE Commun Standards Mag 2018; 2: 60–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  207. Zhu L, Zhang C and Xu C et al. Traffic monitoring in self-organizing VANETs: A privacy-preserving mechanism for speed collection and analysis. IEEE Wireless Commun 2019; 26: 18–23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  208. Gazis V. A survey of standards for machine-to-machine and the Internet of Things. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2017; 19: 482–511. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  209. Raza U, Kulkarni P and Sooriyabandara M. Low power wide area networks: An overview. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2017; 19: 855–873. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  210. Leng J, Jiang P and Liu C et al. Contextual self-organizing of manufacturing process for mass individualization: A cyber-physical-social system approach. Enterprise Inf Syst 2020; 14: 1124–1149. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  211. Liu Q, Leng J and Yan D et al. Digital twin-based designing of the configuration, motion control, and optimization model of a flow-type smart manufacturing system. J Manuf Syst 2021; 58: 52–64. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  212. Ngo HQ, Ashikhmin A and Yang H et al. Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells. IEEE Trans Wireless Commun 2017; 16: 1834–1850. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  213. Li Y, Cao B and Peng M et al. Direct acyclic graph-based ledger for Internet of Things: Performance and security analysis. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 2020; 28: 1643–1656. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  214. Robla-Gómez S, Becerra VM and Llata JR et al. Working together: A review on safe human-robot collaboration in industrial environments. IEEE Access 2017; 5: 26754–26773. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  215. Malm T. Safety design process for collaborative robots 2022. [Google Scholar]
  216. Costanzo M, De Maria G and Lettera G et al. A multimodal approach to human safety in collaborative robotic workcells. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 2021; 19: 1202–1216. [Google Scholar]
  217. Yang JC, Mun J and Kwon SY et al. Electronic skin: Recent progress and future prospects for skin-attachable devices for health monitoring, robotics, and prosthetics. Adv Mater 2019; 31: 1904765. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  218. Suhail S, Hussain R and Jurdak R et al. Trustworthy digital twins in the industrial Internet of Things with blockchain. IEEE Internet Comput 2022; 26: 58–67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  219. Wang J, Yan Z and Wang H et al. A survey on trust models in heterogeneous networks. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2022; 24: 2127–2162. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  220. Pohlt C, Hell S and Schlegl T et al. Impact of spontaneous human inputs during gesture-based interaction on a real-world manufacturing scenario. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, 2017, 347–351. [Google Scholar]
  221. Srimal PAS, Muthugala MVJ and Jayasekara ABP. Deictic gesture enhanced fuzzy spatial relation grounding in natural language. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), IEEE, 2017, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  222. Hong A, Lunscher N and Hu T et al. A multimodal emotional human–robot interaction architecture for social robots engaged in bidirectional communication. IEEE Trans Cybern 2020; 51: 5954–5968. [Google Scholar]
  223. Lamon E, Peternel L and Ajoudani A. Towards a prolonged productivity in industry 4.0: A framework for fatigue minimisation in robot-robot co-manipulation. In: 2018 IEEE-RAS 18th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), IEEE, 2018, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  224. Kinast A, Doerner KF and Rinderle-Ma S. Biased random-key genetic algorithm for cobot assignment in an assembly/disassembly job shop scheduling problem. Procedia Comput Sci 2021; 180: 328–337. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  225. Pabolu VKR, Shrivastava D and Kulkarni MS. A digital-twin based worker’s work allocation framework for a collaborative assembly system. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2022; 55: 1887–1892. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  226. Pan H, Liew SC and Liang J et al. Coding of multi-source information streams with age of information requirements. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 2021; 39: 1427–1440. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  227. Sun W, Zhang H and Wang R et al. Reducing offloading latency for digital twin edge networks in 6G. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2020; 69: 12240–12251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  228. Hong Y, Wu J and Morello R. LLM-twin: Mini-giant model-driven beyond 5G digital twin networking framework with semantic secure communication and computation, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10631]. [Google Scholar]
  229. Yin D, Chen Y and Kannan R et al. Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2018, 5650–5659. [Google Scholar]
  230. Fang M, Cao X and Jia J et al. Local model poisoning attacks to Byzantine-Robust federated learning. In: 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20), 2020, pp. 1605–1622. [Google Scholar]
  231. Wang Y, Zhu T and Chang W et al. Model poisoning defense on federated learning: A validation based approach. In: International Conference on Network and System Security, Springer, 2020, pp. 207–223. [Google Scholar]
  232. Bao X, Su C and Xiong Y et al. FLChain: A blockchain for auditable federated learning with trust and incentive. In: 2019 5th International Conference on Big Data Computing and Communications (BIGCOM), IEEE, 2019, 151–159. [Google Scholar]
  233. Qu Y, Pokhrel SR and Garg S et al. A blockchained federated learning framework for cognitive computing in industry 4.0 networks. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2021; 17: 2964–2973. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  234. Zhang X, Li F and Zhang Z et al. Enabling execution assurance of federated learning at untrusted participants. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, IEEE, 2020, pp. 1877–1886. [Google Scholar]
  235. Zhao Y, Xu K and Wang H et al. Stability-based analysis and defense against backdoor attacks on edge computing services. IEEE Network 2021; 35: 163–169. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  236. Li Z, Peng B and He P et al. Evaluating the instruction-following robustness of large language models to prompt injection 2023. [Google Scholar]
  237. Romero OJ, Zimmerman J and Steinfeld A et al. Synergistic integration of large language models and cognitive architectures for robust AI: An exploratory analysis. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series 2023, 396–405. [Google Scholar]
  238. Zafar A, Parthasarathy VB and Van CL et al. Building trust in conversational AI: A comprehensive review and solution architecture for explainable privacy-aware systems using LLMs and knowledge graph, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.13534]. [Google Scholar]
  239. Dale D, Voronov A and Dementieva D et al. Text detoxification using large pre-trained neural models, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08914]. [Google Scholar]
  240. Lee K, Ippolito D and Nystrom A et al. Deduplicating training data makes language models better, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06499]. [Google Scholar]
  241. Li L and Qiu X. Token-aware virtual adversarial training in natural language understanding. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2021; 35: 7830–7838. [Google Scholar]
  242. Dong X, Luu AT and Lin M et al. How should pre-trained language models be fine-tuned towards adversarial robustness? Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2021; 34: 4356–4369. [Google Scholar]
  243. Ouyang L, Wu J and Jiang X et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2022; 35: 27730–27744. [Google Scholar]
  244. Mo W, Xu J and Liu Q et al. Test-time backdoor mitigation for black-box large language models with defensive demonstrations, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09763]. [Google Scholar]
  245. Sun X, Li X and Meng Y et al. Defending against backdoor attacks in natural language generation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2023, 37, 5257–5265. [Google Scholar]
  246. Helbling A, Phute M and Hull M et al. LLM self defense: By self examination LLMS know they are being tricked, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07308]. [Google Scholar]
  247. Xu R, Baracaldo N and Zhou Y et al. Hybridalpha: An efficient approach for privacy-preserving federated learning. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security, 2019, pp. 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  248. Jayaraman B, Wang L and Evans D et al. Distributed learning without distress: Privacy-preserving empirical risk minimization. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2018; 31. [Google Scholar]
  249. Wei K, Li J and Ding M et al. User-level privacy-preserving federated learning: Analysis and performance optimization. IEEE Trans Mobile Comput 2021; 21: 3388–3401. [Google Scholar]
  250. Sav S, Pyrgelis A and Troncoso-Pastoriza JR et al. Poseidon: Privacy-preserving federated neural network learning. In: 28th Annual Network And Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS 2021). INTERNET SOC 2021. [Google Scholar]
  251. Zhao B, Fan K and Yang K et al. Anonymous and privacy-preserving federated learning with industrial big data. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2021; 17: 6314–6323. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  252. Andreux M, du Terrail JO and Beguier C et al. Siloed federated learning for multi-centric histopathology datasets. In: Domain Adaptation and Representation Transfer and Distributed and Collaborative Learning: Second MICCAI Workshop, DART 2020, and First MICCAI Workshop, DCL 2020, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2020, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings 2. Springer 2020; pp. 129–139. [Google Scholar]
  253. Subramani N, Luccioni S and Dodge J et al. Detecting personal information in training corpora: an analysis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2023), 2023; pp. 208–220. [Google Scholar]
  254. Uzuner O, Luo Y and Szolovits P. Evaluating the state-of-the-art in automatic de-identification. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14: 550–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  255. Weng J, Jiasi W and Li M et al. Auditable privacy protection deep learning platform construction method based on block chain incentive mechanism. US Patent 11836616. Dec 5, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  256. Weng J, Weng J and Zhang J et al. Deepchain: Auditable and privacy-preserving deep learning with blockchain-based incentive. IEEE Trans Depend Secure Comput 2021; 18: 2438–2455. [Google Scholar]
  257. Li X, Tramer F and Liang P et al. Large language models can be strong differentially private learners, 2021, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05679]. [Google Scholar]
  258. Liu Y, Chen H-H and Wang L. Physical layer security for next generation wireless networks: Theories, technologies, and challenges. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2016; 19: 347–376. [Google Scholar]
  259. Liu Z, Liu J and Zeng Y et al. Covert wireless communication in IoT network: From AWGN channel to THz band. IEEE Internet Things J 2020; 7: 3378–3388. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  260. Tang J, Jiao L, Zeng K et al. Physical layer secure MIMO communications against eavesdroppers with arbitrary number of antennas. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Security 2020; 16: 466–481. [Google Scholar]
  261. Li Y, Yu Y and Lou C et al. Decentralized public key infrastructures atop blockchain. IEEE Network 2020; 34: 133–139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  262. Yang X, Chen Y, Chen X. Effective scheme against 51% attack on proof-of-work blockchain with history weighted information. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain), IEEE, 2019, 261–265. [Google Scholar]
  263. Saad M, Njilla L and Kamhoua C et al. Countering selfish mining in blockchains. In: 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), IEEE, 2019, 360–364. [Google Scholar]
  264. Heilman E, Kendler A and Zohar A et al. Eclipse attacks on Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In: 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15) 2015; 129–144. [Google Scholar]
  265. Zhang S and Lee J-H. Double-spending with a sybil attack in the bitcoin decentralized network. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2019; 15: 5715–5722. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  266. Baek U-J, Ji S-H and Park J-T et al. DDoS attack detection on bitcoin ecosystem using deep-learning. In: 2019 20th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS). IEEE, 2019, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  267. Watanabe H and Fan H. A novel chip-level blockchain security solution for the Internet of Things networks. Technologies 2019; 7: 28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  268. Da Costa L, Neto A and Pinheiro B et al. DLCP: A protocol for securing light client operation in blockchains. In: NOMS 2018–2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, IEEE, 2018, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  269. Ivanov N, Li C and Yan Q et al. Security threat mitigation for smart contracts: A comprehensive survey. ACM Comput Surveys 2023; 55: 1–37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  270. Lin J-CW, Srivastava G and Zhang Y et al. Privacy-preserving multiobjective sanitization model in 6G IoT environments. IEEE Internet Things J 2020; 8: 5340–5349. [Google Scholar]
  271. Sun Y, Liu J and Wang J et al. When machine learning meets privacy in 6G: A survey. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2020; 22: 2694–2724. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  272. Silva P, Monteiro E and Simoes P. Privacy in the cloud: A survey of existing solutions and research challenges. IEEE Access 2021; 9: 10473–10497. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  273. Gugueoth V, Safavat S and Shetty S et al. A review of IoT security and privacy using decentralized blockchain techniques. Comput Sci Rev 2023; 50: 100585. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  274. Zong Y, Guo Y and Chen X. Policy-based access control for robotic applications. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), IEEE, 2019, pp. 368–3685. [Google Scholar]
  275. Dieber B, Breiling B and Taurer S et al. Security for the Robot Operating System. Robot Auton Syst 2017; 98: 192–203. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  276. Jones A and Straub J. Using deep learning to detect network intrusions and malware in autonomous robots. In: Cyber Sensing 2017, Vol. 10185, SPIE 2017; pp. 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  277. Fagiolini A, Dini G and Bicchi A. Distributed intrusion detection for the security of industrial cooperative robotic systems. IFAC Proc Volumes 2014; 47: 7610–7615. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  278. Liu J, Li C and Bai J et al. Security in IoT-enabled Digital Twins of Maritime Transportation Systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2023; 24: 2359–2367. [Google Scholar]
  279. Liu J, Zhang L and Li C et al. Blockchain-based secure communication of intelligent transportation digital twins system. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2022; 23: 22630–22640. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  280. Xu J, He C and Luan TH. Efficient authentication for vehicular digital twin communications. In: 2021 IEEE 94th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2021-Fall), IEEE, 2021; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  281. Wang Y, Su Z and Zhang N et al. SPDS: A secure and auditable private data sharing scheme for smart grid based on blockchain. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2020; 17: 7688–7699. [Google Scholar]
  282. Richter A. Do privacy concerns prevent employees’ acceptance of smart wearables and collaborative robots? 2020. [Google Scholar]
  283. Cai J, Gao Z and Guo Y et al. FedHIP: Federated learning for privacy-preserving human intention prediction in human-robot collaborative assembly tasks. Adv Eng Inform 2024; 60: 102411. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  284. Son S, Kwon D and Lee J et al. On the design of a privacy-preserving communication scheme for cloud-based digital twin environments using blockchain. IEEE Access 2022; 10: 75365–75375. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  285. Sun W, Xu N and Wang L et al. Dynamic digital twin and federated learning with incentives for air-ground networks. IEEE Trans Netw Sci Eng 2022; 9: 321–333. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  286. Lu Y, Huang X and Zhang K et al. Low-latency federated learning and permissioned blockchain for digital twin edge networks. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 2020; 17: 5098–5107. [Google Scholar]
  287. Cai Y, Cao D and Guo R et al. Locating and mitigating gender bias in large language models, 2024, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14409]. [Google Scholar]
  288. Xue M, Liu D and Yang K et al. OccuQuest: Mitigating occupational bias for inclusive large language models, 2023, ArXiv preprint [arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16517]. [Google Scholar]
  289. Huang T, Lin W and Wu W et al. An efficiency-boosting client selection scheme for federated learning with fairness guarantee. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 2020; 32: 1552–1564. [Google Scholar]
  290. Tan AZ, Yu H and Cui L et al. Towards personalized federated learning. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 2022. [Google Scholar]
  291. Lin X, Wu J and Li J et al. Heterogeneous differential-private federated learning: Trading privacy for utility truthfully. IEEE Trans Depend Secure Comput 2023. [Google Scholar]
  292. Perez ATE, Rossit DA and Tohme F et al. Mass customized/personalized manufacturing in industry 4.0 and blockchain: Research challenges, main problems, and the design of an information architecture. Inf Fusion 2022; 79: 44–57. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  293. Ammi M, Alarabi S, Benkhelifa E. Customized blockchain-based architecture for secure smart home for lightweight IoT. Inf Process Manag 2021; 58: 102482. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  294. Zuo Y, Guo J and Gao N et al. A survey of blockchain and artificial intelligence for 6G wireless communications. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2023. [Google Scholar]
  295. Chen J, Yi C and Okegbile SD et al. Networking architecture and key supporting technologies for human digital twin in personalized healthcare: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun Surveys Tuts 2023. [Google Scholar]
  296. Park KT, Lee J and Kim H-J et al. Digital twin-based cyber-physical production system architectural framework for personalized production. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2020; 106: 1787–1810. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  297. Wang Z, Ma X and Zhang H et al. Communication-efficient personalized federated learning for digital twin in heterogeneous industrial IoT. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops). IEEE, 2023, pp. 237–241. [Google Scholar]
  298. Hong Y, Wu J and Bashir AK. Safety virtual-reality evaluation as a service for intelligent electronic AVs: An edge-cloud consumer-customized approach. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 01–06. [Google Scholar]
  299. Lu Y, Huang X and Zhang K et al. Communication-efficient federated learning and permissioned blockchain for digital twin edge networks. IEEE Internet Things J 2020; 8: 2276–2288. [Google Scholar]
  300. De Pace F, Manuri F and Sanna A et al. A systematic review of augmented reality interfaces for collaborative industrial robots. Comput Ind Eng 2020; 149: 106806. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.