Received 1 November 2022, accepted 24 February 2023, date of publication 28 February 2023, date of current version 3 March 2023.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3250235

Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems

Using Machine Learning
MOHAMED S. ABDALZAHER 1 , (Senior Member, IEEE),
MOSTAFA M. FOUDA 2 , (Senior Member, IEEE), HUSSEIN A. ELSAYED3 ,
AND MAHMOUD M. SALIM 4,5
1 Egyptian National Seismic Network (ENSN) Laboratory, Seismology Department, National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG), Helwan,
Cairo 11421, Egypt
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
3 Electronics and Communications Engineering Department, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11517, Egypt
4 Engineering Department, October 6 University, Giza 12585, Egypt
5 School of Electrical Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, South Korea

Corresponding author: Mohamed S. Abdalzaher (msabdalzaher@nriag.sci.eg)

ABSTRACT Machine learning (ML) and the internet of things (IoT) are among the most booming research
directions. Smart cities, smart campuses (SCs), smart homes, smart cars, early warning systems (EWSs),
etc.; or it could be called ‘‘Smart x’’ systems are implemented using ML and IoT. Those systems will alter
how various world entities communicate with one another. This paper spots light on the significant roles of
the IoT in SS. Also, it focuses on the importance of ML in IoT-based SS. Besides, an overview of smartness
and IoT is presented. Then, this paper offers ML benchmarking along with a taxonomy that categorizes the
ML models into linear and non-linear ones depending on the problem type (classification or regression).
Afterward, the commonly utilized evaluation metrics are provided. In addition, this paper considers the
trust techniques used for mitigating different security aspects in IoT networks, which play a crucial part
in regulating the new era of communication. Moreover, two case studies devoting ML for IoT-based SS,
namely IoT-based SC and IoT-based EWS, are considered for data collection and manipulation with guided
research directions. Finally, the paper presents effective recommendations of ML’s significant roles in SC
and earthquake EWS for interested scholars.

INDEX TERMS Machine learning, Internet of Things, smart systems, security.

I. INTRODUCTION and intelligent integrated solutions, as noted in [5]. Numerous

The internet of things (IoT) is a network of intelligent research attempts have been made in this area for the above-
physical objects that connects to the outside world in order mentioned problems. For instance, in the IoT-based smart
to exchange information [1], [2]. There have been efficient campus (SC), game theory (GT) is an optimization approach
methods suggested for managing the analysis of complicated that may successfully tackle security issues and regulate
data, improving security and privacy, and reducing power power consumption to reduce system service degradation [1].
consumption as a result of the IoT networks’ rapid expansion To assess and protect the IoT SS, several additional
over the past several years [3], [4]. Relational models research efforts have made use of machine learning (ML)-
that could not otherwise be inferred can be built with based algorithms [6]. Some of them created ML architectures
IoT. The solutions that are now available for handling that took use of the correlation between the signals from
such developing applications are mostly communication- various sensor nodes over both time and space (across
oriented. To fully address the aforementioned problems, sensors). Moreover, they used additional data processing
IoT-based smart systems (SS) still require more adaptable techniques, such as time-series analysis (using models like
ARMA and/or ARIMA). In [7], a strong IoT-based SS would
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and result from models that used time and spatial correlations
approving it for publication was Xiong Luo . to better understand the indicators of infected/corrupted
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
VOLUME 11, 2023 For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 20827
 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
data. It is worth mentioning that IoT-based SS has recently
involved early warning systems (EWS) aside from classical
technologies. In the seismology field, the presented efforts
in seismic hazard assessment, risk mitigation, site speci-
fication parameter determination, etc. would assist in this
regard [8], [9], [10], [11]. Therefore, intelligent integration
between these classical and modern technologies has become
inevitable to mitigate such vulnerable systems.
Recently, ML and deep learning (DL) algorithms have
been developed to address a variety of research issues. The
success of using DL [12], [13], [14] has improved this
path. This has increased the interest in using different ML
techniques to solve a variety of difficult research challenges.
Due to the limitations of traditional techniques, ML tools
may be used to generate (learn) extremely complex relational
models. Several difficult research issues, from recommen-
dation systems to autonomous driving automobiles, have
been successfully addressed by the use of ML approaches
[15], [16], [17]. This success is credited to the adaptability
of ML in understanding complicated systems and to the fact
that all you need to execute your ML algorithm are a proper
ML model and adequate datasets. This lessens the demands
placed on traditional models, which are primarily founded
on intricate, constrained mathematical models. Even more,
ML algorithms can ‘‘learn’’ essential aspects from the data to
extract them.
Satellite systems, IoT, radio-frequency identification,
software-defined networks (SDN), 5G, network functions
virtualization (NFV), data networks, and other technologies
have all been used in numerous research efforts to try
and reduce the impact of earthquakes [18], [19], [20],
[21], [22]. Additionally, social media had little impact in
reducing the likelihood of an earthquake tragedy. The authors
of [23] suggested using full solutions that blended the power
of social media with conventional methods to lessen the
effects of disasters. The research efforts in the area of the
literature extended beyond the remote sensing application
made possible by satellite communication systems [24] to
SDN and NFV, which featured IoT-based gateways [25].
That initiative made an effort to aid massive domains whose
infrastructures had been damaged or destroyed entirely.
As a pivot, virtualization may also assist in reducing
catastrophic risk. According to research in [26], such
networks must effectively protect the nodes’ lifetime.
By merging the cloud system-based IoT and heterogeneous
network, the authors of [27] presented a tragic scenario
that illustrated an EWS for a safe plan of evacuation
against disaster risks. In a similar vein, combining IoT with
contemporary communication technologies and techniques
might be crucial for ensuring safe and seamless data transfer
[1], [28], [29], [30].
All of these initiatives are discussed in connection with
traditional earthquake research and detection methods as well
as methods for distinguishing the character of fault ruptures
that have been extensively studied in the literature [31].
To evaluate the received signal consistency between the
20828
investigated nearest neighbors among the targeted stations
and their closest neighbors, a local similarity earthquake
detection technique based on the nearest neighbor approach
was proposed in [32]. Furthermore, rather than focusing on
the full rupture, [14] and [33] focused on calculating the
earthquake’s amplitude from a few early seconds. Further
work and study are still required due to the time constraint,
as it takes a long time to calculate the earthquake parameters
using standard methods [34].
With the complicated Earth’s structure, the moving seismic
waves provide flexible and ingenious study-related solutions.
Without a doubt, modern technology can assist to lessen
the effects of this seismic disaster and its consequences.
One of the most recent technologies, ML, for instance,
is crucial in solving complex problems for which there is
no established mathematical approach [35]. Data mining and
reassembling irregular or missing data using ML is another
useful application of ML. In [17] and [16], ML algorithms
have been proposed to assess the peak particle velocity
(PPV) and discriminate the quarry blasts. The peak ground
acceleration and its impact on urban planning have both
been predicted using ML [36]. The abbreviations used in the
manuscript are listed in Table 1. Table 2 lists the involved
notations throughout the paper.
A. MOTIVATION
Since IoT-based SS is involved in different applications,
several entities are prone to vital security issues that need
a reliable and intelligent solution. In this regard, ML can
play a signification role in the security front, specifically
when vulnerable systems are used such as EWS and SC.
To the best of our knowledge, no similar contribution has been
presented in the literature targeting the integration of IoT, SS,
and ML along with proposing two case studies namely IoT-
based earthquake EWS and IoT-based SC. These case studies
enrich the researchers with a clear practical vision of how to
implement a real IoT-based SS model relying on ML.
Contrary to our paper, in [37], the authors focused on
the importance of AI when utilized in SS for various
applications. However, that work did not shed the light on
the integration between IoT, ML, and SS. Besides, in contrast
to our contribution, the proposal of [38] paid attention to
the security issues that may threaten the SS in addition to
existing privacy policies without considering ML solutions
and IoT role. Besides, the work presented in [39] addressed
the security issues in SS applications with no detailed analysis
for the community giving a general presentation without a
clear contribution about the secure IoT-based SS using ML.
B. CONTRIBUTIONS
In this paper, the words ‘‘smartness’’ and ‘‘IoT’’ are defined
and examined. The paper also provides a full examination
of ML’s varieties, applications, and security concerns in IoT
SS, as well as the typical assessment metrics applied to ML
models. The paper explains the relevant components and
VOLUME 11, 2023
M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
TABLE 1. List of abbreviations.
essential functions of the IoT SS. Many different sorts of
academics can benefit from the issues being presented since
they offer clear research guidelines. Afterward, we consider
two case studies of SC and earthquake EWS showing the
involved entities cooperating to facilitate a smooth academic
regime in the universities, and a flexible evacuation plan,
respectively.
The major contributions of the paper are presented as
follows:
• Spotting light on the significant roles of IoT in SS.
• Focusing on the importance of ML in IoT-based SS.
• Offering ML benchmarking along with a taxonomy that
categorizes models into linear and non-linear ones.
• Classifying the SS security problems based on the
problem type (classification or regression), the targeted
security issue, the kind of IoT network, and the
employed evaluation metrics.
VOLUME 11, 2023
TABLE 2. List of notations.
• Proposing two case studies of secured IoT-based SS
relying on ML, namely, SC and earthquake EWS.
• Recommending the ML key roles in SC and earthquake
EWS for interested scholars.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
addresses the significant related work of ML-based security
models for IoT SS. In Section III, the concepts of smartness
and IoT are discussed, while the SS security methodologies
are presented in Section IV. Section V provides a taxonomy
of the linear and non-linear ML models. In Section VI, the
common ML evaluation metrics are laid out. Two case studies
for the SC and earthquake EWS are given in Section VIII.
Section IX presents valuable recommendations for using
ML for SC and earthquake EWS, and finally, the paper is
concluded in Section X.
II. RELATED WORK
Recently, IoT networks have proved beneficial for the
different SS architectures. In [40], the authors provided an
overview of IoT technology, discussing its statistical and
architectural trends, applications, difficulties, and opportuni-
ties for the future. The authors also provided a comprehensive
and in-depth assessment of the new 5G-IoT technologies
such as software-defined wireless sensor networking (SD-
WSN), centralized radio access network (CRAN), multiple-
input multiple-output (MIMO), massive-MIMO (MMIMO),
coordinated multipoint processing (CoMP), device-to-device
(D2D) communications, and cognitive radios (CRs). Besides,
the paper presented a detailed analysis of these key enabling
technologies and discussed the new 5G-IoT use cases that are
emerging as a result of developments in artificial intelligence
20829
 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
(AI) as well as ongoing 5G initiatives, quality of service
(QoS) standards, and ongoing 5G projects. That study
concluded by discussing difficulties in 5G-IoT adoption due
to high data rates concerning both cloud-based platforms and
edge computing on IoT devices.
The authors in [41] analyzed IoT security solutions
based on ML approaches, such as supervised learning,
unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning (RL),
looking at the attack model for IoT systems. The paper
focused on virus detection, secure offloading, and ML-based
IoT authentication to safeguard data privacy. The authors also
went over the difficulties that should be overcome in order
to use these ML-based security techniques in real-world IoT
devices.
In [42], the security needs, attack vectors, and current
security solutions for IoT networks were all thoroughly
reviewed. The vulnerabilities in these security solutions
that demand ML and DL strategies were then highlighted.
Finally, that paper went into great detail about the ML and
DL solutions that are being used to solve various security
issues in IoT networks. Also, the authors went over several
potential future areas for ML and DL-based IoT security
research.
The authors in [3] discussed the architecture of IoT,
following a comprehensive literature review on ML that
approaches the importance of security of IoT in terms of
different types of possible attacks. Moreover, ML-based
potential solutions for IoT security were presented and future
challenges were discussed.
In [43], the authors objective was to give academics a
resource on current research trends in IoT security using ML.
The paper created models that can incorporate cutting-edge
big data and ML techniques and technologies in light of the
exponential expansion of large-scale IoT threats. That was by
finding the most effective algorithms and models to identify
IoT attacks in real-time or near real-time, which requires a
focus on accuracy and efficiency.
The study in [44] introduced a novel ML-based security
framework that was automatically adapted to the evolving
security needs of the IoT domain. To reduce various
vulnerabilities, the framework made use of both SDN and
NFV enablers. To accomplish its objectives, the framework
employed supervised learning, a distributed data mining
system, and neural networks.
In [45], the work discussed the usage of ML for
cybersecurity and cyber-physical systems (CPS)/IoT from
a good, bad, and ugly perspective. Many ML advantages
to security and CPS/IoT were discussed in detail, including
the advancement of intrusion detection systems (IDS) and
decision accuracy in CPS/IoT. The flaws in ML from the
security, CPS, and IoT viewpoints, cover the ways that ML
systems can be tricked, exploited, and subverted at all ML
life-cycle stages (data collection, pre-processing, training,
validation, implementation, etc.). The use of ML in the
execution of cyberattacks and incursions was also considered,
which is the most worrying developing trend (ugly use).
20830
The work in [46] offered a thorough analysis of IDS of
IoT for the years 2015–2019. Different IDS deployment
and analysis methodologies in IoT architecture have been
covered. In addition to discussing different IoT invasions,
the study also examined ML and DL methods for spotting
assaults on IoT networks. The challenges and problems with
IoT security were also covered in the study.
In [47], a comprehensive analysis outlining the most
current developments in ML methods for the IoT was offered
and numerous IoT applications were described. Users could
receive deep analytics and create effective, intelligent IoT
applications thanks to the application of ML in this field.
The paper included traffic profiling, IoT device identification,
security, edge computing architecture, network management,
and common IoT applications as well as open problems and
research challenges.
III. SMARTNESS AND IoT
IoT and smartness are defined in many different ways.
According to [40] and [48], an indicative definition of the
IoT comprises IP-enabled devices, which may communicate
with one another to aid data gathering and analysis as
well as system monitoring and control. Additionally, smart
monitoring and control may be accomplished if the system
is intelligent. SS are capable of making judgments based
on recognition processes that emerge from the learning
phase. Instead of just tweaking sensor thresholds or imple-
menting ‘‘if’’ conditions, SS involve the use of intelligent
algorithms [49].
Let us compare the advantages of the smart and legacy
fire alarm systems to better understand the advantages of
IoT SS. While legacy fire alarm systems may alert a control
center and send warnings at various sensor levels, these
notifications are still not made based on recognition but
rather on sensor settings. However, a smart fire alarm system
can detect the scenario and prevent false alerts, such as
when someone is smoking a cigarette unless this is done on
purpose. An important benefit of [50], is that the identified
circumstance may be communicated to the rest of the system
via the IoT network.
Building a trustworthy IoT SS would be appropriate as
a product that can be marketed in practically any place
both domestically and abroad. Additionally, a protected data
collecting platform, where big data analytics may be used,
can be connected to the IoT SS. The analysis of this encrypted
data might be used for a variety of things, including but not
restricted to system improvement and data privacy. Numerous
disciplines can benefit from the capability of studying such
an integrated system to deduce key properties, according
to [51]. Indeed, IoT-based SS suffer from different security
issues such as compromising benevolent nodes, resources’
deterioration, and data corruption and non-integrity. In the
literature context, such vulnerabilities have been mitigated
using several security models, which are benchmarked in the
following sections.
VOLUME 11, 2023
M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
IV. COMMON SECURITY METHODOLOGIES
Optimization techniques have proven beneficial in different
fields for desired system robustness and stability factors, e.g.,
resource management, enhancing security and data privacy,
and power conservation. More particularly, GT is among
those techniques that is effectively utilized to improve the
above-mentioned factors [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. In [30],
GT and TDMA protocol are be used to enhance security
and manage power consumption in WSNs-based application,
which meets the IoT network nature. In [29], GT has served
IoT applications by modeling the interactions of the nodes
based on a non-zero-sum game leading to a robust and
secure IoT SS and maintaining the connectivity between the
participant nodes and the centralized unit controlling the
designed network.
SS can be involved in a smart garage, individuals’
monitoring, the effective interconnection between outdoor
lighting, building, lighting, heating, cooling power systems,
security surveillance, physical and access systems [40], [57],
[58], [59]. Interestingly, long-term evolution (LTE) can also
play a significant role in the SS when D2D communication is
utilized as extensively studied in [60], [61], [62], and [63].
In the literature context, SS security is a crucial issue
in such IoT-dependent systems [1]. Since several IoT
sensors/devices are distributed in far fields with the battery-
dependent operation, the optimization techniques are ben-
eficial for power conservation. It is worth mentioning that
genetic algorithms, KKT, Nelder-Mead, GT, and ML are
among the emerging types of optimization techniques that are
involved in the above-mentioned issues. More particularly,
ML can intellectually model complex systems at which the
optimal solution is achieved leading to managing the data
transmission of the IoT sensors, guaranteeing security and
privacy, and conserving the power consumption [28], [51].
Accordingly, an effective IoT-based SS is achieved. Many
security issues have been handled using ML models. The
upcoming sections layout the main research efforts in IoT-
based SS including the utilized models’ evaluation metrics.
V. MACHINE LEARNING TAXONOMY
The classification of an object is often determined by a
human after reviewing the data. The goal of ML is to use the
best ML algorithms to fully automate this process. ML may
often be divided into two categories: supervised learning
and unsupervised learning. Following, we here provide a
taxonomy of the most popular linear and nonlinear ML
models used in the literature context for the SS. The following
subsections categorize the ML models into two types, linear
models and nonlinear ones, which are detailed in Table 3.
A. LINEAR MODELS
1) LOGISTIC REGRESSION
When performing statistical analysis on a dataset with many
independent variables leading to a binary decision, logistic
regression (LR) is used. To fit data across a logit function,
VOLUME 11, 2023
LR models the posterior probability of K feature classes,
producing a binary output ∈ {0, 1} [64].
2) LINEAR AND QUADRATIC DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) was created to address
several challenges that the LR faces. The LDA paradigm is
more suitable than that of the LR when, in each of the classes,
the predictors’ distribution is normal and the sample size is
typically small. Before using LDA, it is necessary to make
a supposition about the data to be refined, namely that each
of the predictors is normally distributed. When data is lower
or higher than a linear assumption and is easily described,
LDA may be insufficient. In these instances, the Quadratic
Discriminant Analysis (QDA), which relies on a non-linear
assumption, may be sufficient [65].
3) LINEAR SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE
The main goal of the support vector machine (SVM) is to
discover an ideal hyperplane (a line connecting two feature
classes) for K-feature classes (making a K-dimensional
space). The K-dimensional space assigns input data features
to target classes intending to obtain the best hyperplane.
When the maximum distance between the class data points
is reached, the hyperplane is reached [66].
4) RIDGE CLASSIFIER
In most cases, the Ridge Classifier is used as a regression
technique, mapping the label data ∈ [−1, 1]. As a result,
it approaches the issue’s solution from the perspective of
regression. The target class is then assigned to the prediction
with the highest value, although in the case of multiclass [67],
multi-output regression is used.
5) GAUSSIAN NAIVE BAYES
The Naive Bayes (NB) classifier is nonlinear in general. The
NB classifier, however, is treated as a linear classifier if the
likelihood factors are dependent on exponential families. For
the situation of features with continuous values, a particular
variation of the NB algorithm known as the Gaussian
algorithm is used. More specifically, the characteristics are
expected to follow a supervised Gaussian distribution [68].
A probabilistic model, the Gaussian NB (GNB) predicts the
classes based on the likelihood that each class exists. The
likelihood can be expressed as:
1 (v − µk )2
p(x = v|Ck ) = q exp − , (1)
2π σk2 2σk2
where σ is the variance, x is a continuous data input attribute,
Ck is the class, v is the probability density, and µ is the mean.
B. NON-LINEAR MODELS
1) AdaBoost
The AdaBoost (AB) uses adaptive boosting to employ
successive weak classifiers for repeatedly changing data sets
by combining them into a stronger classifier based on a
20831
 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning

TABLE 3. ML-based security models taxonomy for IoT applications.

weighted majority vote. The AB algorithm gives harder- entities less weight. The observation weights are initialized
to-classify entities more weight and gives easier-to-handle by AB in the first stage [69]. The classifier is then fitted to

20832 VOLUME 11, 2023

M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
the training data using the weights, and after computing the
weighted error rate, the classifier is given a new weight to
help it make its final judgment. After that, the new classifier is
compared to the old one in hopes of improving the prediction
made by the new tree.
2) GRADIENT, LIGHT GRADIENT, AND EXTREME GRADIENT
BOOSTING CLASSIFIERS
First, a model known as gradient boosting (GB) transforms
weak classifiers into stronger ones. In contrast to the AB, the
gradient in the GB leverages high-weight data points in the
loss function to identify the weak classifiers’ weaknesses.
Second, using the tree-learning approach, Light Gradient
Boosting (LGB) is an updated framework of GB. In other
words, the LGB distributed model is designed to be more
effective than the GB [70]. Third, Extreme Gradient Boosting
(XGB) is a very efficient, adaptable, and portable variant
of the GB library [71]. XGB enables a quick and effective
parallel tree-boosting method. By examining the distributions
of the features for all data points in a leaf, the XGB also takes
into account the potential loss for any splits that might result
in a new branch. By doing this, the search space for potential
feature splits is reduced.
3) RANDOM FOREST, DECISION TREE, AND EXTRA TREES
First, one of the ensemble approaches that utilize the tree
notion is random forest (RF). It comprises parallel learners
who are used to reduce bias and variation at the same
time [72]. In general, the RF is used as a probabilistic
predictor in classification tasks, which are defined as:
NT
1 X
Ŷ (x) = Ri (x),
NT
i=1
where x represents the vector of the input, NT defines the
trees’ number, and Ri (x) be the regression tree of i. Second,
the random forest model is less likely to overfit since the
extra-trees (ET) model is a developed variation of the random
forest. To help the estimators perform better, they can choose
at random the best characteristics from the input dataset, [73].
Third, is the decision tree (DT) model, which can handle
both classification and regression problems by breaking them
down into a number of simpler ones in order to achieve an
easier solution fulfillment [74].
4) K -NEAREST NEIGHBORS
The k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm classifies an input
according to the majority class of its k nearest neighbors in
space, using [75] as an example. When k = 1, the smallest
KNN is anticipated since the model is prone to become overly
dependent on noise or outliers.
5) CatBoost CLASSIFIER
In CatBoost (CB), a particular type of depth-first expansion
known as the oblivious trees is used. The CB makes use of a
vectorized exemplification of the tree, where each level uses
VOLUME 11, 2023
a binary splitting approach. It results in quick convergence
and quick evaluation as a result. Contrarily, the CB is not
advantageous when utilized with low false-positive rates,
according to [76].
VI. EVALUATION METRICS OF ML MODELS
The ability to perform further analysis than was previously
done in terms of the improvements in data storage and
computing capacity has helped to clarify how observed value
differs from one another. As a result, the following metrics
are commonly used to evaluate the ML model performance.
From the security point of view, several ML models have
been developed for IoT-based SS security and have been
evaluated using different metrics as discussed in the following
subsections. Table 3 complies with the main research efforts
in this regard.
A. ACCURACY
The accuracy score, which is calculated by dividing the
number of correct predictions by the total number of
predictions, determines how well a classification model
performs:
Pn
I (ti = yi )
Accuracy = i=1 (3)
n
where the total number of predictions are represented by n,
the predicted target is defined by ti , I is an indicator function,
and yi is the target of the class. The score of optimal accuracy
is 1 which explains that the prediction perfectly fits the data.
If the accuracy score is 1, it is important to note that the
anticipated values and target values exactly match. Therefore,
the accuracy precision may be stated as follows:
(2)
Accuracy = TP+TN
(4)
n
where the true positive (TP) indicates the correct predictions
(for a positive result) in a two-class classification problem,
while the true negative (TN) is a different category of negative
finding.
B. F1-SCORE
The F1 score is a popular statistic used to show how
accurate a machine learning model is based on the input
dataset. In more detail, it uses a binary categorization
system to divide the choice into ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’
categories. It incorporates the model’s harmonic mean recall
and accuracy. It comes from:
TP
F1 = 1
(5)
TP + 2 (FP + FN)
where the false positive (FP) represents the samples that were
incorrectly classified as positive, while the false negative
(FN) is another category of negative findings.
C. COHEN KAPPA SCORE (KAPPA)
The accuracy that would have resulted from using random
estimates is taken into account by the Kappa score [77]. The
20833
 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
ideal accuracy score is reached when Kappa is equal to 1.
It comes from:
2 × (TP · TN − FP · FN)
κ= (6)
(TP + FP) · (TP + FN) · (TN + FP) · (TN + FN)
D. MATTHEWS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (MCC)
Matthews [78], a popular index in ML for binary classifica-
tion, is the source of the MCC. MCC is a coefficient that con-
trasts binary classifications that are expected and observed.
The value range of MCC is [−1, 1]. The values ‘‘−1’’ and
‘‘0’’ represent complete falsehood between observation and
estimation, complete randomness, and absolute prediction
accuracy, respectively. The MCC can be written as:
TP · TN − FP · FN
MCC = √
(TP + FP) · (TP + FN) · (TN + FP) · (TN + FN)
(7)
E. CONFUSION MATRIX
The confusion matrix is used to identify and display the
category that a classifier mostly struggles with. The testing
scenarios are divided into ground truth and predicted labels
to create a confusion matrix. According to the convention,
the confusion matrix of an N-class model is an N×N matrix
indexed by the true class in the row dimension and the
predicted class in the column dimension [79]. Finally, the
following equations provide the true and false positive rates
(TPR and FPR).
TP
TPR = , (8)
TP + FN
FP
FPR = . (9)
FP + TN
F. RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC
The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is another
statistic that we can calculate using the prediction results. The
TP rate and FP rate are plotted for the classifiers: class 0,
class 1, micro-average, and macro-average. The classifier’s
accuracy increases with time until the TP rate approaches
1.0. We can observe how well the classifier predicts the class
targets as the percentage of samples changes by charting
the cumulative gain of the class targets as functions of the
samples [80].
G. INTERSECTION OVER UNION
We can assess how well the projected bounding box resem-
bles the ground truth bounding box using the Intersection over
union (IoU) measure [81]. The goal is to compare the ratio of
the overlapped area between the two boxes to their combined
total area, which can be expressed by:
ŷ ∩ y
IOU = (10)
ŷ ∪ y
where y is the true label set, and ŷ denotes the predicted
label set.
20834
VII. ML AND IoT-BASED SS BENCHMARKING
This section combines both IoT-based SS and ML models
for security considering different evaluation metrics of these
models as illustrated in Table 3. This table classifies the
ML models into linear and nonlinear ones. Linear models
include LR, LDA, QDA, Ridge, NB, SVM, and GNB.
On the other hand, the nonlinear models include AB,
GB, RF, KNN, CB, DT, EGB, and LGB. The models are
further divided into classification (C) or regression (R) ones.
The table also shows the targeted security issue by the
ML model. Furthermore, the corresponding IoT network
affected by that security issue is then denoted. Finally,
the evaluation metrics employed for those ML models are
listed.
It is worth mentioning that Table 3 is beneficial taxonomy,
which can be used as a guide for researchers interested in IoT-
based SS security. For instance, in [82], the LR model has
been used as a ‘‘C’’ approach for anomaly detection in general
IoT networks, which is evaluated by F1-score, precision, and
accuracy. Another paradigm for the nonlinear case has been
developed by the ‘‘R’’ model relying on KNN to handle the
uncertain data stored in semi-trusted cloud servers of an IoT
ecosystem [102]. That model has been examined by accuracy
and query efficiency.
VIII. CASE STUDIES OF IoT-BASED SS
Based on the previous discussion of the role of ML with
IoT-based SS, this section adopts two case studies that rely
on the IoT-based SS showing the significant role of ML.
More particularly, this role is involved in mitigating the
security issues that could happen due to internal or external
attacks on the SS vulnerabilities. The two case studies
are SC and EWS, which are discussed in the following
subsections.
A. SMART CAMPUS
Let us look at SC as a basic SS case study to bring together
many SS components discussed below. The SC architecture
built on the IoT is shown in Figure 1. It is made up of
servers and a database (DB) that securely gathers data from
remote IoT sensors or subsystems that carry out various tasks
required for the functioning of the SC. Based on the facts at
hand, the system is capable of making intelligent judgments
and taking the necessary actions.
An IP camera system with a facial recognition algorithm
and a connection to the student DB make up the first part
of a smart attendance system. Based on pre-established
regulations that are communicated to the students, educa-
tors, and administration, it automatically tracks attendance.
Another feature of smart gates is their ability to identify
license plates, authenticate users, and detect open parking
spaces before opening the gate to that car and reserving an
appropriate parking space with directions. This procedure
results in effective parking garage use and smooth traffic
flow. Additionally, a motion-sensing lighting system that
automatically switches between day and night is included.
VOLUME 11, 2023
M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning

FIGURE 1. IoT-based smart campus.

FIGURE 2. An integration sample of IoT and ML in IoT-based smart campus.

There are also additional sets of features, such as smart waste,
smart irrigation, smart classroom control, etc. A mobile
application that is simple to use may be used to monitor
and control the entire system. It is worth mentioning that
the ML model can play an important role in pinpointing
the data anomaly due to internal or external attacks. Those
attacks may jeopardize the educational system and affect the
academic process such as injecting false reports about the
students’ evaluations, attendance, etc.
In Figure 1, the distributed entities are used to create a
robust SC. Therefore, it is important to precisely assess and
estimate the amount of data that is transferred between these
entities. Such application is vulnerable to attack attempts.
The ML models are thereafter used in this crucial situation
to counteract the attack manipulations. After that, those
resources can be effectively used for an efficient educational
process. As a result, a robust SC is achieved using the superior
ML model. The link between the campus and administration

VOLUME 11, 2023 20835

 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning

FIGURE 3. General diagram for a comprehensive EWS.

FIGURE 4. An integration sample of IoT and ML in IoT-based EWS.

as distinct parties involved in the entire SC process, as well as is shown in Figure 2. Additionally, the data of the parking
the data analysis and the investigation carried out by ML via process is observed and then securely transferred to the data
the IoT system to secure the data transmission in all phases, processing stage using an ML model via the IoT system. From

20836 VOLUME 11, 2023

M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
there, the ML model runs the protection process and takes the
relevant decision(s) before being delivered back to the SC for
action.
B. EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM
To protect life, an earthquake EWS is unavoidable. To man-
age disasters and reduce earthquake risk, it is essential to
be able to promptly identify an earthquake’s features. These
features may be sent via modern technologies like the IoT
network, mobile network, a global positioning system (GPS),
and social media to lessen the effects of an earthquake
disaster.
A comprehensive earthquake EWS that incorporates many
administrations and helps to mitigate seismic disasters is
shown in Figure 3. In fact, this suggested system merges
cellular networks, social networks, multiple utilities, and
IoT technologies. The process involves two steps. The ML
models are used in the first stage, which is the pre-disaster
phase, to identify the beginning of the major wave. For risk
minimization, such as quick shut-off of energy generators
and nuclear power plants, this approach is particularly
advantageous. Following the catastrophe, there comes a
second phase when the goal is to alleviate the effects of the
disaster. For instance, adopting such an integrated system
makes it easier to compile reliable data about the impacted
individuals, structures, utilities, and geographic areas. As a
result, a successful evacuation strategy may be carried out.
Such a system requires an intelligent and adaptable
solution capable of quickly handling complicated issues.
ML can play a substantial vital part in those intercon-
nected administrations engaged in getting successful EWS
within the range of the current approaches. A promising
technique, ML is unaffected by the format, length, or kind
of data. It is worth noting that the ML model can play
a significant role in the data privacy of the EWS due to
selfish or malicious behavior. Such fraudulent behavior can
lead to worse disaster consequences. In other words, the
evacuation plan for an earthquake disaster can be performed
imperfectly.
In fact, real-time applications are used to monitor the
scattered entities shown in Figure 3 and used to build a
reliable EWS. Therefore, it is important to precisely evaluate
the amount of data that is transferred between these entities.
Such application is exposed to attack attempts. Then, the ML
models are used in this vital process to counteract the attacks.
Then, those entities can be effectively utilized prior to, during,
and following an earthquake disaster. In other words, such a
process can safely manage seismic disasters, risk reduction,
and evacuation plans. As a result, a robust EWS is achieved
using the efficient ML model that has been constructed. The
relationships between railways, the monitoring of seismic
activity, and data processing by ML via the IoT system
to secure the data transmission at all stages are shown in
Figure 4. More specifically, the seismic activity is detected,
then securely transferred to the data processing stage using
an ML model and the railway information of the disaster
VOLUME 11, 2023
location via the IoT system. Here, the necessary protection
process is performed, and the necessary decision(s) are
made before being sent back to the railway system for
execution.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS OF ML FOR SC AND
EARTHQUAKE EWS
Due to ML’s rapid growth and dependability in addressing
complicated issues, it can offer efficient and flexible solutions
for the following open SC and earthquake field areas.
For the SC, the following items are still open for enhancing
the smoothness of the academic process using ML.
• Follow-up attendance: To use a digital attendance
management system to monitor and track employees’
and students’ entrance into SC, which is incredibly
effective.
• Sensors power conservation: To propose an ML-based
energy-saving framework that considers the limited
battery power as well as communication and storage
capabilities of IoT devices according to the environmen-
tal states.
• System security and data privacy: To ensure the security
and privacy of the data produced by IoT devices,
particularly in light of potential resource limitations
like memory and processing capacity. To protect real-
time data processing on these devices, security protocols
and cryptographic algorithms should be capable of re-
adaptation.
• Using appropriate datasets: To evaluate and analyze the
model performance utilizing the convenient dataset such
as university campuses data, google datasets, etc.
• Vehicle monitoring and control: To monitor the vehicles
entering/exiting the campus as well as control the
pedestrians’ access using an advanced ML approach
such as classification-based object recognition.
For the earthquake EWS, the following items still need
more effort for reaching an intelligent and adaptive solution
based on ML.
• Picking: It means exactly locating the start of the
primary wave, which precedes the strong and destructive
wave.
• Denoising: It speaks of the method of isolating the
noise wave from the genuine occurrences. Except
for earthquake waves, all other types of waves are
represented by noise.
• Noise and microseismic discrimination: This technique
successfully distinguishes between noise and actual
events of extremely tiny size.
• Clustering: Depending on the frequency, size, etc.,
of earthquakes, it divides the areas.
• Magnitude estimation: This has to do with figuring out
how big the witnessed event is.
• Phase detection: It tells whether the signal being
received is composed of primary or secondary waves.
• Peak ground acceleration: It reflects the highest esti-
mated acceleration that might occur at a certain site.
20837
 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
X. CONCLUSION
In this study, the terms ‘‘smartness’’ and ‘‘IoT’’ are defined
and discussed. Additionally, it included a thorough analysis
of ML’s kinds, uses, and applications on IoT SS, including
security considerations. More specifically, this study pro-
vided a taxonomy that divided ML models into linear and
non-linear ones based on the problem type (classification
or regression), the targeted security issue, the kind of IoT
network, and the used evaluation measure. The presentation
concluded with two case studies of IoT-based SS. The
first case study is an IoT-based SC that illustrates the
involved elements and necessary functionality. The second
case study is an IoT-based EWS that considers the correlated
administrations supporting a resilient evacuation plan. The
stated topics provide clear study avenues that are useful to
many different types of scholars. Last but not least, the paper
provided key recommendations for using ML regarding the
two aforementioned case studies that we believe can be useful
for future research.
REFERENCES
[1] M. S. Abdalzaher and O. Muta, ‘‘A game-theoretic approach for
enhancing security and data trustworthiness in IoT applications,’’ IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 11250–11261, Nov. 2020.
[2] M. M. Salim, D. Wang, H. A. El Atty Elsayed, Y. Liu, and M. A. Elaziz,
‘‘Joint optimization of energy-harvesting-powered two-way relaying
D2D communication for IoT: A rate–energy efficiency tradeoff,’’ IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 11735–11752, Dec. 2020.
[3] S. M. Tahsien, H. Karimipour, and P. Spachos, ‘‘Machine learning based
solutions for security of Internet of Things (IoT): A survey,’’ J. Netw.
Comput. Appl., vol. 161, Jul. 2020, Art. no. 102630.
[4] K. A. P. da Costa, J. P. Papa, C. O. Lisboa, R. Munoz, and
V. H. C. de Albuquerque, ‘‘Internet of Things: A survey on machine
learning-based intrusion detection approaches,’’ Comput. Netw., vol. 151,
pp. 147–157, Mar. 2019.
[5] F. O. Olowononi, D. B. Rawat, and C. Liu, ‘‘Federated learning with
differential privacy for resilient vehicular cyber physical systems,’’
in Proc. IEEE 18th Annu. Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf. (CCNC),
Jan. 2021, pp. 1–5.
[6] M. R. Manesh, J. Kenney, W. C. Hu, V. K. Devabhaktuni, and
N. Kaabouch, ‘‘Detection of GPS spoofing attacks on unmanned aerial
systems,’’ in Proc. 16th IEEE Annu. Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf.
(CCNC), Jan. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[7] A. Uprety, D. B. Rawat, and J. Li, ‘‘Privacy preserving misbehavior
detection in IoV using federated machine learning,’’ in Proc. IEEE 18th
Annu. Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf. (CCNC), Jan. 2021, pp. 1–6.
[8] G. Cremen, C. Galasso, and E. Zuccolo, ‘‘Investigating the potential
effectiveness of earthquake early warning across Europe,’’ Nature
Commun., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Feb. 2022.
[9] M. Elhadidy, M. S. Abdalzaher, and H. Gaber, ‘‘Up-to-date PSHA along
the Gulf of aqaba-dead sea transform fault,’’ Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.,
vol. 148, Sep. 2021, Art. no. 106835.
[10] M. S. Abdalzaher, M. El-Hadidy, H. Gaber, and A. Badawy, ‘‘Seismic
hazard maps of Egypt based on spatially smoothed seismicity model and
recent seismotectonic models,’’ J. Afr. Earth Sci., vol. 170, Oct. 2020,
Art. no. 103894.
[11] S. S. Moustafa, M. S. Abdalzaher, F. Khan, M. Metwaly, E. A. Elawadi,
and N. S. Al-Arifi, ‘‘A quantitative site-specific classification approach
based on affinity propagation clustering,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 9,
pp. 155297–155313, 2021.
[12] M. S. Abdalzaher, S. S. R. Moustafa, H. E. A. Hafiez, and W. F. Ahmed,
‘‘An optimized learning model augment analyst decisions for seismic
source discrimination,’’ IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60,
pp. 1–12, 2022.
[13] T. Perol, M. Gharbi, and M. Denolle, ‘‘Convolutional neural network for
earthquake detection and location,’’ Sci. Adv., vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2018,
Art. no. e1700578.
20838
[14] M. S. Abdalzaher, M. S. Soliman, S. M. El-Hady, A. Benslimane,
and M. Elwekeil, ‘‘A deep learning model for earthquake parameters
observation in IoT system-based earthquake early warning,’’ IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 8412–8424, Jun. 2022.
[15] B. Pradhan, ‘‘A comparative study on the predictive ability of the
decision tree, support vector machine and neuro-fuzzy models in
landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS,’’ Comput. Geosci., vol. 51,
pp. 350–365, Feb. 2013.
[16] M. S. Abdalzaher, S. S. R. Moustafa, M. Abd-Elnaby, and M. Elwekeil,
‘‘Comparative performance assessments of machine-learning methods
for artificial seismic sources discrimination,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 9,
pp. 65524–65535, 2021.
[17] S. S. R. Moustafa, M. S. Abdalzaher, M. H. Yassien, T. Wang,
M. Elwekeil, and H. E. A. Hafiez, ‘‘Development of an optimized
regression model to predict blast-driven ground vibrations,’’ IEEE Access,
vol. 9, pp. 31826–31841, 2021.
[18] G. Mei, N. Xu, J. Qin, B. Wang, and P. Qi, ‘‘A survey of Internet
of Things (IoT) for Geohazard prevention: Applications, technologies,
and challenges,’’ IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 4371–4386,
May 2020.
[19] X. Li, R. Lu, X. Liang, X. Shen, J. Chen, and X. Lin, ‘‘Smart community:
An Internet of Things application,’’ IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 11,
pp. 68–75, Nov. 2011.
[20] E. Ghamry, E. K. Mohamed, M. S. Abdalzaher, M. Elwekeil,
D. Marchetti, A. De Santis, M. Hegy, A. Yoshikawa, and A. Fathy,
‘‘Integrating pre-earthquake signatures from different precursor tools,’’
IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 33268–33283, 2021.
[21] M. S. Abdalzaher and H. A. Elsayed, ‘‘Employing data communication
networks for managing safer evacuation during earthquake disaster,’’
Simul. Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 94, pp. 379–394, Jul. 2019.
[22] M. S. Abd Alzaher, H. A. Elsayed, S. I. Kayed, and W. R. Anis, ‘‘Road
traffic modeling using data communication networks,’’ Int. J. Comput.
Appl., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1–8, 2011.
[23] M. Avvenuti, S. Cresci, A. Marchetti, C. Meletti, and M. Tesconi,
‘‘Predictability or early warning: Using social media in modern
emergency response,’’ IEEE Internet Comput., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 4–6,
Nov. 2016.
[24] M. De Sanctis, E. Cianca, G. Araniti, I. Bisio, and R. Prasad, ‘‘Satellite
communications supporting Internet of Remote things,’’ IEEE Internet
Things J., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 113–123, Feb. 2016.
[25] C. Mouradian, N. T. Jahromi, and R. H. Glitho, ‘‘NFV and SDN-based
distributed IoT gateway for large-scale disaster management,’’ IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 4119–4131, Oct. 2018.
[26] M. Elwekeil, M. S. Abdalzaher, and K. Seddik, ‘‘Prolonging smart grid
network lifetime through optimising number of sensor nodes and packet
length,’’ IET Commun., vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 2478–2484, Oct. 2019.
[27] N.-H. Bao, M. Kuang, S. Sahoo, G.-P. Li, and Z.-Z. Zhang, ‘‘Early-
warning-time-based virtual network live evacuation against disaster
threats,’’ IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2869–2876,
Apr. 2020.
[28] M. S. Abdalzaher, M. Elwekeil, T. Wang, and S. Zhang, ‘‘A deep
autoencoder trust model for mitigating jamming attack in IoT assisted
by cognitive radio,’’ IEEE Syst. J., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 3635–3645,
Sep. 2022.
[29] M. S. Abdalzaher, L. Samy, and O. Muta, ‘‘Non-zero-sum game-
based trust model to enhance wireless sensor networks security for IoT
applications,’’ IET Wireless Sensor Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 218–226, 2019.
[30] M. S. Abdalzaher and O. Muta, ‘‘Employing game theory and TDMA
protocol to enhance security and manage power consumption in WSNs-
based cognitive radio,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 132923–132936, 2019.
[31] Y. Fukao and M. Furumoto, ‘‘Hierarchy in earthquake size distribution,’’
Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors, vol. 37, nos. 2–3, pp. 149–168, Feb. 1985.
[32] Z. Li, Z. Peng, D. Hollis, L. Zhu, and J. McClellan, ‘‘High-resolution
seismic event detection using local similarity for large-N arrays,’’ Sci.
Rep., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jan. 2018.
[33] E. L. Olson and R. M. Allen, ‘‘The deterministic nature of earthquake
rupture,’’ Nature, vol. 438, no. 7065, pp. 212–215, Nov. 2005.
[34] S. S. Moustafa, M. S. Abdalzaher, M. Naeem, and M. M. Fouda, ‘‘Seismic
hazard and site suitability evaluation based on multicriteria decision
analysis,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 69511–69530, 2022.
[35] J. Schmidhuber, ‘‘Deep learning in neural networks: An overview,’’
Neural Netw., vol. 61, pp. 85–117, Oct. 2015.
VOLUME 11, 2023
M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
[36] O. Hamdy, H. Gaber, M. S. Abdalzaher, and M. Elhadidy, ‘‘Identifying
exposure of urban area to certain seismic hazard using machine learning
and GIS: A case study of greater Cairo,’’ Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 17,
p. 10722, Aug. 2022.
[37] I. H. Sarker, ‘‘AI-based modeling: Techniques, applications and research
issues towards automation, intelligent and smart systems,’’ Social Netw.
Comput. Sci., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–20, Mar. 2022.
[38] K. Suresh Kumar, D. Prabakaran, R. Senthil Kumaran, and I. Yamuna,
‘‘Privacy and security of smart systems,’’ in Intelligent Green Tech-
nologies for Sustainable Smart Cities. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
pp. 291–315, 2022.
[39] S. Ahmed, Md. F. Hossain, M. S. Kaiser, M. B. T. Noor, M. Mahmud,
and C. Chakraborty, ‘‘Artificial intelligence and machine learning for
ensuring security in smart cities,’’ in Data-Driven Mining, Learning and
Analytics for Secured Smart Cities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021,
pp. 23–47.
[40] K. Shafique, B. A. Khawaja, F. Sabir, S. Qazi, and M. Mustaqim,
‘‘Internet of Things (IoT) for next-generation smart systems: A review
of current challenges, future trends and prospects for emerging 5G-IoT
scenarios,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 23022–23040, 2020.
[41] L. Xiao, X. Wan, X. Lu, Y. Zhang, and D. Wu, ‘‘IoT security techniques
based on machine learning: How do IoT devices use AI to enhance
security?’’ IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 41–49,
Sep. 2018.
[42] F. Hussain, R. Hussain, S. A. Hassan, and E. Hossain, ‘‘Machine learning
in IoT security: Current solutions and future challenges,’’ IEEE Commun.
Surveys Tuts., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1686–1721, 3rd Quart., 2020.
[43] R. Ahmad and I. Alsmadi, ‘‘Machine learning approaches to IoT security:
A systematic literature review,’’ Internet Things, vol. 14, Jun. 2021,
Art. no. 100365.
[44] M. Bagaa, T. Taleb, J. B. Bernabe, and A. Skarmeta, ‘‘A machine
learning security framework for IoT systems,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 8,
pp. 114066–114077, 2020.
[45] F. Liang, W. G. Hatcher, W. Liao, W. Gao, and W. Yu, ‘‘Machine learning
for security and the Internet of Things: The good, the bad, and the ugly,’’
IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 158126–158147, 2019.
[46] A. Thakkar and R. Lohiya, ‘‘A review on machine learning and deep
learning perspectives of IDS for IoT: Recent updates, security issues, and
challenges,’’ Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 3211–3243,
Jun. 2021.
[47] L. Cui, S. Yang, F. Chen, Z. Ming, N. Lu, and J. Qin, ‘‘A survey on
application of machine learning for Internet of Things,’’ Int. J. Mach.
Learn. Cybern., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1399–1417, Aug. 2018.
[48] M. S. Abdalzaher, H. A. Elsayed, and M. M. Fouda, ‘‘Employing
remote sensing, data communication networks, AI, and optimization
methodologies in seismology,’’ IEEE J. Sel. Topics Appl. Earth Observ.
Remote Sens., vol. 15, pp. 1–23, 2022.
[49] A. K. Somani, R. S. Shekhawat, A. Mundra, S. Srivastava, and
V. K. Verma, Smart Systems and IoT: Innovations in Computing Proceed-
ing of SSIC 2019, vol. 141. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2019.
[50] A. R. Yanes, P. Martinez, and R. Ahmad, ‘‘Towards automated
aquaponics: A review on monitoring, IoT, and smart systems,’’ J. Cleaner
Prod., vol. 263, Aug. 2020, Art. no. 121571.
[51] Y. J. Fan, Y. H. Yin, L. D. Xu, Y. Zeng, and F. Wu, ‘‘IoT-based
smart rehabilitation system,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 1568–1577, May 2014.
[52] M. S. Abdalzaher, K. Seddik, and O. Muta, ‘‘Using Stackelberg game to
enhance cognitive radio sensor networks security,’’ IET Commun., vol. 11,
no. 9, pp. 1503–1511, 2017.
[53] M. S. Abdalzaher, K. Seddik, M. Elsabrouty, O. Muta, H. Furukawa,
and A. Abdel-Rahman, ‘‘Game theory meets wireless sensor networks
security requirements and threats mitigation: A survey,’’ Sensors, vol. 16,
no. 7, p. 1003, 2016.
[54] M. S. Abdalzaher, K. Seddik, and O. Muta, ‘‘Using repeated game
for maximizing high priority data trustworthiness in wireless sensor
networks,’’ in Proc. IEEE Symp. Comput. Commun. (ISCC), Jul. 2017,
pp. 552–557.
[55] M. S. Abdalzaher, K. Seddik, O. Muta, and A. Abdelrahman, ‘‘Using
Stackelberg game to enhance node protection in WSNs,’’ in Proc.
13th IEEE Annu. Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf. (CCNC), Jan. 2016,
pp. 853–856.
[56] M. S. Abdalzaher, K. Seddik, and O. Muta, ‘‘An effective Stackelberg
game for high-assurance of data trustworthiness in WSNs,’’ in Proc. IEEE
Symp. Comput. Commun. (ISCC), Jul. 2017, pp. 1257–1262.
VOLUME 11, 2023
[57] M. S. Abdalzaher, M. M. Fouda, and M. I. Ibrahem, ‘‘Data privacy
preservation and security in smart metering systems,’’ Energies, vol. 15,
no. 19, p. 7419, Oct. 2022.
[58] M. S. Abdalzaher, M. M. Salim, H. A. Elsayed, and M. M. Fouda,
‘‘Machine learning benchmarking for secured IoT smart systems,’’ in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Internet Things Intell. Syst. (IoTaIS), Nov. 2022,
pp. 1–7.
[59] M. S. Abdalzaher, O. Muta, K. Seddik, A. Abdel-Rahman, and
H. Furukawa, ‘‘B-18–40 a simplified Stackelberg game approach for
securing data trustworthiness in wireless sensor networks,’’ in Proc.
IEICE Gen. Conf., 2016, p. 538.
[60] M. M. Salim, D. Wang, Y. Liu, H. A. E. A. Elsayed, and M. A. Elaziz,
‘‘Optimal resource and power allocation with relay selection for RF/RE
energy harvesting relay-aided D2D communication,’’ IEEE Access,
vol. 7, pp. 89670–89686, 2019.
[61] M. M. Salim, H. A. Elsayed, M. S. Abdalzaher, and M. M. Fouda, ‘‘RF
energy harvesting dependency for power optimized two-way relaying
D2D communication,’’ in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Internet Things Intell.
Syst. (IoTaIS), Nov. 2022, pp. 297–303.
[62] M. M. Salim, H. A. Elsayed, M. A. Elaziz, M. M. Fouda, and
M. S. Abdalzaher, ‘‘An optimal balanced energy harvesting algorithm
for maximizing two-way relaying D2D communication data rate,’’ IEEE
Access, vol. 10, pp. 114178–114191, 2022.
[63] J. Liu, N. Kato, J. Ma, and N. Kadowaki, ‘‘Device-to-device communi-
cation in LTE-advanced networks: A survey,’’ IEEE Commun. Surveys
Tuts., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1923–1940, 4th Quart., 2015.
[64] D. G. Kleinbaum, K. Dietz, M. Gail, M. Klein, and M. Klein, Logistic
Regression. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2002.
[65] G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, An Introduction to
Statistical Learning, vol. 112. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2013.
[66] Y.-W. Chang and C.-J. Lin, ‘‘Feature ranking using linear SVM,’’ in Proc.
Causation Predict. Challenge, 2008, pp. 53–64.
[67] J. Staal, M. D. Abramoff, M. Niemeijer, M. A. Viergever, and
B. van Ginneken, ‘‘Ridge-based vessel segmentation in color images
of the retina,’’ IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 501–509,
Apr. 2004.
[68] A. Pérez, P. Larrañaga, and I. Inza, ‘‘Supervised classification with
conditional Gaussian networks: Increasing the structure complexity from
naive Bayes,’’ Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–25,
Sep. 2006.
[69] J. Zhu, H. Zou, S. Rosset, and T. Hastie, ‘‘Multi-class AdaBoost,’’ Statist.
Interface, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 349–360, 2009.
[70] A. A. Taha and S. J. Malebary, ‘‘An intelligent approach to credit card
fraud detection using an optimized light gradient boosting machine,’’
IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 25579–25587, 2020.
[71] T. Chen and T. He, ‘‘Xgboost: Extreme gradient boosting,’’ R Package
Version 0.4-2, vol. 1, no. 4, Microsoft, Tech. Rep., 2015.
[72] L. Breiman, ‘‘Random forests,’’ Mach. Learn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32,
2001.
[73] P. Geurts, D. Ernst, and L. Wehenkel, ‘‘Extremely randomized trees,’’
Mach. Learn., vol. 63, pp. 3–42, Apr. 2006.
[74] M. Xu, P. Watanachaturaporn, P. K. Varshney, and M. K. Arora, ‘‘Decision
tree regression for soft classification of remote sensing data,’’ Remote
Sens. Environ., vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 322–336, 2005.
[75] S. Tan, ‘‘An effective refinement strategy for KNN text classifier,’’ Exp.
Syst. Appl., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 290–298, Feb. 2006.
[76] R. Punmiya and S. Choe, ‘‘Energy theft detection using gradient boosting
theft detector with feature engineering-based preprocessing,’’ IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 2326–2329, Mar. 2019.
[77] M. L. McHugh, ‘‘Interrater reliability: The Kappa statistic,’’ Biochem.
Med., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 276–282, 2012.
[78] B. W. Matthews, ‘‘Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary
structure of T4 phage lysozyme,’’ Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Protein Struct.,
vol. 405, no. 2, pp. 442–451, Oct. 1975.
[79] C. Sammut and G. I. Webb, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data
Mining. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017.
[80] J. N. Mandrekar, ‘‘Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic
test assessment,’’ J. Thoracic Oncol., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1315–1316,
Sep. 2010.
[81] H. Rezatofighi, N. Tsoi, J. Gwak, A. Sadeghian, I. Reid, and S. Savarese,
‘‘Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding
box regression,’’ in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit.
(CVPR), Jun. 2019, pp. 658–666.
20839
 M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning
[82] F. Abbasi, M. Naderan, and S. E. Alavi, ‘‘Anomaly detection in Internet
of Things using feature selection and classification based on logistic
regression and artificial neural network on N-BaIoT dataset,’’ in Proc.
5th Int. Conf. Internet Things Appl. (IoT), May 2021, pp. 1–7.
[83] C. Ioannou and V. Vassiliou, ‘‘An intrusion detection system for
constrained WSN and IoT nodes based on binary logistic regression,’’
in Proc. 21st ACM Int. Conf. Model., Anal. Simul. Wireless Mobile Syst.,
Oct. 2018, pp. 259–263.
[84] E. Oram, B. Naik, and M. R. Senapati, ‘‘Identification of malicious access
in IoT network from connection traces by using light gradient boosting
machine,’’ in Computational Intelligence in Data Mining. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer, 2022, pp. 711–720.
[85] K. Prathapchandran and T. Janani, ‘‘A trust aware security mechanism
to detect sinkhole attack in RPL-based IoT environment using random
forest–RFTRUST,’’ Comput. Netw., vol. 198, Oct. 2021, Art. no. 108413.
[86] H. H. Pajouh, R. Javidan, R. Khayami, A. Dehghantanha, and
K.-K. R. Choo, ‘‘A two-layer dimension reduction and two-tier classifi-
cation model for anomaly-based intrusion detection in IoT backbone net-
works,’’ IEEE Trans. Emerg. Topics Comput., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 314–323,
Apr./Jun. 2019.
[87] D. Zheng, Z. Hong, N. Wang, and P. Chen, ‘‘An improved LDA-based
ELM classification for intrusion detection algorithm in IoT application,’’
Sensors, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 1706, Mar. 2020.
[88] J. Park, X. Xu, Y. Jin, D. Forte, and M. Tehranipoor, ‘‘Power-based
side-channel instruction-level disassembler,’’ in Proc. 55th Annu. Design
Autom. Conf., Jun. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[89] Y. K. Saheed and M. O. Arowolo, ‘‘Efficient cyber attack detection on
the Internet of Medical things-smart environment based on deep recurrent
neural network and machine learning algorithms,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 9,
pp. 161546–161554, 2021.
[90] S. Hassan, A. Houbing, and K. M. Malik, ‘‘NBC-MAIDS: Naïve
Bayesian classification technique in multi-agent system-enriched IDS
for securing IoT against DDoS attacks,’’ J. Supercomput., vol. 74,
pp. 5156–5170, May 2018.
[91] D. Reising, J. Cancelleri, T. D. Loveless, F. Kandah, and A. Skjellum,
‘‘Radio identity verification-based IoT security using RF-DNA finger-
prints and SVM,’’ IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 8356–8371,
May 2020.
[92] M. Shen, X. Tang, L. Zhu, X. Du, and M. Guizani, ‘‘Privacy-
preserving support vector machine training over blockchain-based
encrypted IoT data in smart cities,’’ IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 5,
pp. 7702–7712, Oct. 2019.
[93] S. Pokhrel, R. Abbas, and B. Aryal, ‘‘IoT security: Botnet detection in
IoT using machine learning,’’ 2021, arXiv:2104.02231.
[94] P. Kumar, G. P. Gupta, and R. Tripathi, ‘‘A distributed ensemble design
based intrusion detection system using Fog computing to protect the
Internet of Things networks,’’ J. Ambient Intell. Humanized Comput.,
vol. 12, pp. 9555–9572, Nov. 2020.
[95] Q. A. Al-Haija, A. Al Badawi, and G. R. Bojja, ‘‘Boost-defence for
resilient IoT networks: A head-to-toe approach,’’ Exp. Syst., vol. 39,
no. 10, Dec. 2022.
[96] F. Wang, D. Jiang, H. Wen, and H. Song, ‘‘AdaBoost-based security level
classification of mobile intelligent terminals,’’ J. Supercomput., vol. 75,
no. 11, pp. 7460–7478, Nov. 2019.
[97] S. Rachmadi, S. Mandala, and D. Oktaria, ‘‘Detection of DoS attack using
AdaBoost algorithm on IoT system,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Data Sci. Its Appl.
(ICoDSA), Oct. 2021, pp. 28–33.
[98] I. Zakariyya, M. O. Al-Kadri, and H. Kalutarage, ‘‘Resource efficient
boosting method for IoT security monitoring,’’ in Proc. IEEE 18th Annu.
Consum. Commun. Netw. Conf. (CCNC), Jan. 2021, pp. 1–6.
[99] A. Alhowaide, I. Alsmadi, and J. Tang, ‘‘PCA, random-forest and
Pearson correlation for dimensionality reduction in IoT IDS,’’ in Proc.
IEEE Int. IoT, Electron. Mechatronics Conf. (IEMTRONICS), Sep. 2020,
pp. 1–6.
[100] A. Derhab, M. Guerroumi, A. Gumaei, L. Maglaras, M. A. Ferrag,
M. Mukherjee, and F. A. Khan, ‘‘Blockchain and random subspace
learning-based IDS for SDN-enabled industrial IoT security,’’ Sensors,
vol. 19, no. 14, p. 3119, 2019.
[101] A. Pramanik and A. K. Das, ‘‘Ensemble machine learning approach to
detect various attacks in a distributed network of vehicles,’’ in Computa-
tional Intelligence in Data Mining. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022,
pp. 407–418.
20840
[102] C. Guo, R. Zhuang, C. Su, C. Z. Liu, and K.-K.-R. Choo, ‘‘Secure and
efficient K nearest neighbor query over encrypted uncertain data in cloud-
IoT ecosystem,’’ IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 9868–9879,
Dec. 2019.
[103] D. K. K. Reddy and H. Behera, ‘‘Catboosting approach for anomaly
detection in IoT-based smart home environment,’’ in Computational
Intelligence in Data Mining. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022,
pp. 753–764.
[104] J. Dutta and S. Roy, ‘‘OccupancySense: Context-based indoor occupancy
detection & prediction using CatBoost model,’’ Appl. Soft Comput.,
vol. 119, Apr. 2022, Art. no. 108536.
[105] M. R. C. Acosta, S. Ahmed, C. E. Garcia, and I. Koo, ‘‘Extremely
randomized trees-based scheme for stealthy cyber-attack detection in
smart grid networks,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 19921–19933, 2020.
[106] D. Puthal, S. Wilson, A. Nanda, M. Liu, S. Swain, B. P. S. Sahoo,
K. Yelamarthi, P. Pillai, H. El-Sayed, and M. Prasad, ‘‘Decision tree based
user-centric security solution for critical IoT infrastructure,’’ Comput.
Electr. Eng., vol. 99, Apr. 2022, Art. no. 107754.
[107] C. Kishore, D. C. Rao, J. Nayak, and H. S. Behera, ‘‘Design of intelligent
framework for intrusion detection platform for Internet of Vehicles,’’
in Computational Intelligence in Data Mining. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer, 2022, pp. 681–693.
[108] S. Mugunthan, ‘‘Decision tree based interference recognition for fog
enabled IoT architecture,’’ J. Trends Comput. Sci. Smart Technol., vol. 2,
no. 1, pp. 15–25, Mar. 2020.
[109] M. Alqahtani, H. Mathkour, and M. M. Ben Ismail, ‘‘IoT botnet attack
detection based on optimized extreme gradient boosting and feature
selection,’’ Sensors, vol. 20, no. 21, p. 6336, Nov. 2020.
[110] M. Elsisi, M. Q. Tran, K. Mahmoud, and D. E. A. Mansour, ‘‘Towards
secured online monitoring for digitalized GIS against cyber-attacks based
on IoT and machine learning,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 78415–78427,
2020.
[111] M. Golec, R. Ozturac, Z. Pooranian, S. S. Gill, and R. Buyya, ‘‘IFaaSBus:
A security- and privacy-based lightweight framework for serverless
computing using IoT and machine learning,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 3522–3529, May 2021.
[112] M. Osman, J. He, F. M. M. Mokbal, N. Zhu, and S. Qureshi, ‘‘ML-LGBM:
A machine learning model based on light gradient boosting machine for
the detection of version number attacks in RPL-based networks,’’ IEEE
Access, vol. 9, pp. 83654–83665, 2021.
MOHAMED S. ABDALZAHER (Senior Member,
IEEE) received the B.Sc. (Hons.) and M.Sc.
degrees in electronics and communications engi-
neering from Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt,
in 2008 and 2012, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree from the Electronics and Communications
Engineering Department, Egypt–Japan University
of Science and Technology, Madinet Borg Al
Arab, Egypt, in 2016.
He is currently an Associate Professor with
the Seismology Department, National Research Institute of Astronomy
and Geophysics, Cairo. He was a Special Research Student with Kyushu
University, Fukuoka, Japan, from 2015 to 2016. From April 2019 to October
2019, he was with the Center for Japan–Egypt Cooperation in Science and
Technology, Kyushu University, where he was a Postdoctoral Researcher.
His research interests include earthquake engineering, data communication
networks, wireless communications, WSNs security, the IoT, and DL.
Dr. Abdalzaher is a TPC Member of the Vehicular Technology Conference
and International Japan–Africa Conference on Electronics, Communications
and Computers. He is a Reviewer of the IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS
JOURNAL, IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, IEEE ACCESS, Transactions on Emerging
Telecommunications Technologies, Applied Soft Computing, Journal of
Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, and IET journals. He is
a Guest Editor of Energies journal and a Topic Editor of Communications
Theory section and Frontiers in Communications and Networks journal.
VOLUME 11, 2023
M. S. Abdalzaher et al.: Toward Secured IoT-Based Smart Systems Using Machine Learning

MOSTAFA M. FOUDA (Senior Member, IEEE) networks. His research interests include telecommunication networks, ad hoc
received the Ph.D. degree in information sciences networks, cognitive radio networks (CRNs), wireless sensor networks
from Tohoku University, Japan, in 2011. He is (WSNs), medium access control (MAC), routing protocols, and mobile sys-
currently an Assistant Professor with the Depart- tems, where he has a long list of publications. He has supervised and joined
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, several telecommunication graduation, research, and laboratory operational
Idaho State University, ID, USA. He also holds networks projects, including for service provider NOC.
a position of a Full Professor with Benha Uni-
versity, Egypt. He was an Assistant Professor
with Tohoku University. He was a Postdoctoral
Research Associate with Tennessee Technological
University, TN, USA. He has been engaged in research on cybersecurity,
communication networks, signal processing, wireless mobile communica-
tions, smart healthcare, smart grids, AI, blockchain, and the IoT. He has
published more than 110 papers in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and
conferences. He was a recipient of the prestigious 1st place award during his
graduation from the Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra, Benha University,
Egypt, in 2002. He has served as the Symposium Chair/ Track Chair for IEEE
VTC 2021-Fall Conference. He has also served as the Workshops Chair,
the Session Chair, and a Technical Program Committee (TPC) Member
in leading international conferences, such as IEEE GLOBECOM, ICC,
PIMRC, ICCVE, IWCMC, and 5G World Forum. He serves as a Referee for
some renowned IEEE journals and magazines, such as IEEE COMMUNICATIONS
MAHMOUD M. SALIM received the B.S. degree
SURVEYS AND TUTORIALS, IEEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS
in computer engineering from October 6 Uni-
ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID,
versity, Egypt, in 2008, the M.S. degree in
IEEE ACCESS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT,
wireless sensor networks (WSNs) from Ain Shams
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EMERGING TOPICS IN COMPUTING, and IEEE Network.
University, Egypt, in 2014, and the Ph.D. degree
He is an Editor of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY and
from the School of EIC, Huazhong University
an Associate Editor of IEEE ACCESS. He served as a Guest Editor for
of Science and Technology (HUST), Wuhan,
some special issues of several top-ranked journals, such as IEEE WIRELESS
China. He is currently an Assistant Professor with
COMMUNICATIONS and IEEE Internet of Things Magazine.
the Department of Communications Engineering,
October 6 University. He has published articles in
HUSSEIN A. ELSAYED received the B.Sc. and top-tier journals, such as IEEE ACCESS and IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL.
M.Sc. degrees from Ain Shams University, Cairo, He has received a graduation project fund granted by the Information
Egypt, and the Ph.D. degree from the Electrical Technology Industry Development Agency (ITIDA), Egypt. His research
Engineering Department, The City College of New interests include computer and mobile networking, especially radio resource
York, NY, USA. He is currently a Full Professor allocation, power allocation, and energy efficiency of device-to-device
with the Electronics and Communications Engi- (D2D) communication in cellular networks, in addition to medium access
neering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain control (MAC) and routing algorithms of wireless sensor networks (WSNs).
Shams University. He has been serving in different Recently, he is interested in the IoT intelligent applications, such as V2X and
positions and built both practical and theoretical relying on machine learning.
skills in the area of communication

VOLUME 11, 2023 20841