arxiv: 2604.11928 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.CR

Recognition: unknown

INTARG: Informed Real-Time Adversarial Attack Generation for Time-Series Regression

Gamze Kirman Tokgoz , Onat Gungor , Tajana Rosing , Baris Aksanli

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.CR

keywords adversarial attackstime-series forecastingonline attacksbounded bufferselective attackregression modelsmachine learning securitydeep learning vulnerability

0 comments

The pith

By attacking only high-confidence time steps with maximal expected error, an online framework raises time-series prediction error up to 2.42 times while striking fewer than 10 percent of steps.

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

The paper develops an adversarial attack method for time-series regression models that must operate in real time with only a bounded recent buffer of observations. It selects attack moments by locating steps where the model is highly confident yet the anticipated prediction error is largest. This informed selection produces stronger overall disruption than attacking at every step while using far fewer perturbations. A reader would care because many deployed forecasting systems cannot retain full histories or sustain constant attacks, so efficient online methods change how security must be designed. If the selection criterion holds, uniform defenses become less effective than ones that specifically guard high-confidence predictions.

Core claim

The INTARG framework performs adversarial attacks on time-series forecasting models under an online bounded-buffer setting by selectively targeting time steps where the model exhibits high confidence and the expected prediction error is maximal. This informed and selective attack strategy produces fewer but substantially more effective attacks. Experiments show that the framework can increase the prediction error up to 2.42x while performing attacks in fewer than 10% of time steps.

What carries the argument

The informed selective attack strategy that estimates model confidence and expected prediction error from the bounded recent buffer to choose which time steps to perturb.

If this is right

Attacks remain feasible in streaming settings that forbid storing complete sequences.
Fewer perturbations lower the computational load and detection surface for the attacker.
The same selection logic applies to any regression model that outputs confidence or uncertainty estimates.
Defenses must prioritize protection of high-confidence forecasts rather than all predictions uniformly.
The approach scales to deep learning time-series models without requiring full-sequence access.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar selective logic could be tested on classification or reinforcement-learning time-series tasks to check generality.
A defender could mirror the method by monitoring the same buffer signals to allocate protection resources.
Real-world deployment would need checks on whether the bounded-buffer estimates remain accurate when data distributions drift.
The result implies that attack success depends more on timing than on attack strength at every step.

Load-bearing premise

The attacker can accurately estimate both model confidence and expected prediction error at each step using only the bounded recent buffer without access to full historical data.

What would settle it

An experiment in which attacks selected by the high-confidence and maximal-expected-error rule produce no greater overall prediction error increase than random selection of the same number of steps or where buffer-based estimates diverge from true model behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11928 by Baris Aksanli, Gamze Kirman Tokgoz, Onat Gungor, Tajana Rosing.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: INTARG components: 1) (Top) Training and Calibration and 2) (Bottom) Attack Generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Our Selective Adversarial Attack Method with Adaptive Threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Time-series forecasting aims to predict future values by modeling temporal dependencies in historical observations. It is a critical component of many real-world systems, where accurate forecasts improve operational efficiency and help mitigate uncertainty and risk. More recently, machine learning (ML), and especially deep learning (DL)-based models, have gained widespread adoption for time-series forecasting, but they remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks. However, many state-of-the-art attack methods are not directly applicable in time-series settings, where storing complete historical data or performing attacks at every time step is often impractical. This paper proposes an adversarial attack framework for time-series forecasting under an online bounded-buffer setting, leveraging an informed and selective attack strategy. By selectively targeting time steps where the model exhibits high confidence and the expected prediction error is maximal, our framework produces fewer but substantially more effective attacks. Experiments show that our framework can increase the prediction error up to 2.42x, while performing attacks in fewer than 10% of time steps.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The selective bounded-buffer attack for time-series regression is a reasonable framing but the 2.42x error claim rests on unshown estimation and experiment details.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the paper describes an online attack for time-series regression models that only perturbs a small fraction of steps by picking ones where the model is confident yet the predicted error is high. This informed selective strategy under a bounded recent buffer is the element that stands out from standard adversarial work on sequences. It addresses a practical constraint that many forecasting systems face, where full history cannot be stored and attacking every timestep is too costly. The abstract does a clear job stating the setting and the efficiency goal of fewer but stronger attacks. That part of the contribution is straightforward and worth noting for anyone thinking about real-time robustness in forecasting. The soft spot is the missing support for the quantitative result. The 2.42x error increase with under 10 percent attacks is presented without any description of the datasets, the base models, the exact method for estimating confidence and expected error from the buffer alone, or comparisons against simpler attack baselines. The central assumption that those quantities can be estimated accurately enough from limited recent data to guide the selection is left untested in the provided text, so it is impossible to tell whether the reported gain holds up or depends on favorable conditions. This paper is mainly for researchers working on adversarial robustness for deployed time-series systems, such as energy load forecasting or sensor networks. A reader already familiar with online constraints and selective perturbation ideas could extract the high-level approach and try to reproduce the selection rule, but anyone wanting to build on the numbers would need the full experimental section first. It deserves peer review because the problem framing is concrete and the efficiency claim is specific enough that referees can check the implementation and the buffer estimation step directly.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes INTARG, an adversarial attack framework for time-series regression models under an online bounded-buffer setting. It introduces an informed selective strategy that targets time steps with high model confidence and maximal expected prediction error, claiming to produce fewer but more effective attacks. The central empirical result is that the framework increases prediction error by up to 2.42x while attacking fewer than 10% of time steps.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold with proper validation, the work would be significant for adversarial machine learning applied to time-series forecasting. It addresses practical constraints of real-time systems (limited storage and per-step computation) by demonstrating that selective, informed attacks can outperform uniform strategies in both efficiency and impact on prediction error. This could inform robustness evaluations in domains like energy forecasting or sensor networks.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The quantitative claim of a 2.42x prediction error increase with attacks in <10% of time steps is presented without any experimental details, including datasets, forecasting models, baseline attack methods, evaluation metrics, or statistical verification. This is load-bearing for the central empirical contribution and prevents assessment of whether the data support the claim.
The framework's core assumption (that the attacker can accurately estimate both model confidence and expected prediction error at each step using only the bounded recent buffer) is stated but not supported by any algorithm, equation, or ablation showing feasibility or accuracy of this estimation. This is load-bearing for the informed selective strategy and the reported efficiency gains.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly named the time-series models or application domains used in the experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, proposing targeted revisions to improve clarity and completeness while preserving the manuscript's contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The quantitative claim of a 2.42x prediction error increase with attacks in <10% of time steps is presented without any experimental details, including datasets, forecasting models, baseline attack methods, evaluation metrics, or statistical verification. This is load-bearing for the central empirical contribution and prevents assessment of whether the data support the claim.

Authors: We agree that the abstract is concise and would benefit from additional context to make the central empirical claim more self-contained. The full experimental details, including datasets (e.g., energy and traffic forecasting benchmarks), models (LSTM and Transformer variants), baselines (adapted FGSM and PGD), metrics (MSE and MAE), and statistical verification via multiple random seeds with significance testing, are provided in Sections 4 and 5. We will revise the abstract to briefly incorporate key elements such as the primary datasets, models, and metrics while remaining within length constraints. This addresses the concern without changing the reported results. revision: yes
Referee: [—] The framework's core assumption (that the attacker can accurately estimate both model confidence and expected prediction error at each step using only the bounded recent buffer) is stated but not supported by any algorithm, equation, or ablation showing feasibility or accuracy of this estimation. This is load-bearing for the informed selective strategy and the reported efficiency gains.

Authors: We acknowledge that while the selective strategy is described in Section 3, the estimation procedure using the bounded buffer could be more explicitly formalized. The manuscript outlines how recent buffer statistics approximate confidence and expected error, but we agree additional support is warranted. We will add explicit equations for the confidence and error estimators, include the full INTARG algorithm pseudocode, and incorporate an ablation study quantifying estimation accuracy relative to an oracle with full history. These additions will directly demonstrate feasibility under the online constraint. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes an informed selective adversarial attack framework for time-series regression under bounded-buffer constraints. Its central claim is framed as an empirical experimental outcome (error increase up to 2.42x while attacking <10% of steps) rather than a mathematical derivation. No equations, parameter fittings, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations are present that would reduce the reported result to its inputs by construction. The method description relies on a selective strategy based on estimated confidence and error, but this is presented as a design choice validated empirically, not as a tautological or fitted prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the method implicitly assumes access to model confidence scores and error estimates within the buffer, but these are not quantified or derived.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5482 in / 1105 out tokens · 25514 ms · 2026-05-10T15:12:09.047768+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Adversarial attacks to solar power forecast,

N. Tang, S. Mao, and R. M. Nelms, “Adversarial attacks to solar power forecast,” inIEEE GLOBECOM. IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[2]

Time series prediction using deep learning methods in healthcare,

M. A. Morid, O. R. L. Sheng, and J. Dunbar, “Time series prediction using deep learning methods in healthcare,”ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2023

2023
[3]

A survey on machine learning models for financial time series forecasting,

Y . Tang, Z. Song, Y . Zhu, H. Yuan, M. Hou, J. Ji, C. Tang, and J. Li, “A survey on machine learning models for financial time series forecasting,” Neurocomputing, vol. 512, pp. 363–380, 2022

2022
[4]

Forecasting network traffic: A survey and tutorial with open-source comparative evaluation,

G. O. Ferreira, C. Ravazzi, F. Dabbene, G. C. Calafiore, and M. Fiore, “Forecasting network traffic: A survey and tutorial with open-source comparative evaluation,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 6018–6044, 2023

2023
[5]

Time-series forecasting with deep learning: a survey,

B. Lim and S. Zohren, “Time-series forecasting with deep learning: a survey,”Philosophical transactions of the royal society a: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, vol. 379, no. 2194, 2021

2021
[6]

Fast and slow streams for online time series forecasting without information leakage,

Y .-y. A. Lau, Z. Shao, and D.-Y . Yeung, “Fast and slow streams for online time series forecasting without information leakage,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

2025
[7]

A comprehensive review on deep learning approaches for short-term load forecasting,

Y . Eren and ˙I. K¨uc ¸¨ukdemiral, “A comprehensive review on deep learning approaches for short-term load forecasting,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 189, p. 114031, 2024

2024
[8]

Roldef: Robust layered defense for intrusion detection against adversarial attacks,

O. Gungor, T. Rosing, and B. Aksanli, “Roldef: Robust layered defense for intrusion detection against adversarial attacks,” in2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

2024
[9]

Rigorous evaluation of machine learning-based intrusion detection against adversarial attacks,

O. Gungor, E. Li, Z. Shang, Y . Guo, J. Chen, J. Davis, and T. Rosing, “Rigorous evaluation of machine learning-based intrusion detection against adversarial attacks,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR). IEEE, 2024, pp. 152–158

2024
[10]

Relate: Resilient learner selection for multivariate time-series classification against adversarial attacks,

C. I. Kocal, O. Gungor, A. Tartz, T. Rosing, and B. Aksanli, “Relate: Resilient learner selection for multivariate time-series classification against adversarial attacks,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR), 2025, pp. 419–424

2025
[11]

Small perturbations are enough: Adversarial attacks on time series prediction,

T. Wu, X. Wang, S. Qiao, X. Xian, Y . Liu, and L. Zhang, “Small perturbations are enough: Adversarial attacks on time series prediction,” Information Sciences, vol. 587, pp. 794–812, 2022

2022
[12]

Targeted attacks on timeseries forecasting,

Y . Govindarajulu, A. Amballa, P. Kulkarni, and M. Parmar, “Targeted attacks on timeseries forecasting,”arXiv:2301.11544, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[13]

Adversarial attacks and defenses in multivariate time-series forecasting for smart and connected infrastructures,

P. Krishan, R. Mohapatra, S. Das, and S. Sengupta, “Adversarial attacks and defenses in multivariate time-series forecasting for smart and connected infrastructures,” inAnnual Conference of the PHM Society, vol. 16, no. 1, 2024

2024
[14]

Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples,

I. J. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, and C. Szegedy, “Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples,”stat, vol. 1050, p. 20, 2015

2015
[15]

Intriguing properties of neural networks

C. Szegedy, W. Zaremba, I. Sutskever, J. Bruna, D. Erhan, I. Goodfellow, and R. Fergus, “Intriguing properties of neural networks.”
[16]

Adversarial attacks on deep neural networks for time series classifica- tion,

H. I. Fawaz, G. Forestier, J. Weber, L. Idoumghar, and P.-A. Muller, “Adversarial attacks on deep neural networks for time series classifica- tion,” inIEEE IJCNN, 2019, pp. 1–8

2019
[17]

How deep learning sees the world: A survey on adversarial attacks & defenses,

J. C. Costa, T. Roxo, H. Proenc ¸a, and P. R. In ´acio, “How deep learning sees the world: A survey on adversarial attacks & defenses,”IEEE Access, 2024

2024
[18]

Adversarial attacks on probabilistic autoregressive forecasting models,

R. Dang-Nhu, G. Singh, P. Bielik, and M. Vechev, “Adversarial attacks on probabilistic autoregressive forecasting models,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 2356–2365

2020
[19]

Onenet: Enhancing time series forecasting models under concept drift by online ensembling,

Q. Wen, W. Chen, L. Sun, Z. Zhang, L. Wang, R. Jin, T. Tanet al., “Onenet: Enhancing time series forecasting models under concept drift by online ensembling,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 69 949–69 980, 2023

2023
[20]

Conformalized quantile regression,

Y . Romano, E. Patterson, and E. Candes, “Conformalized quantile regression,”Advances in neural inf. process. systems, vol. 32, 2019

2019
[21]

Adversarial purification for data-driven power system event classifiers with diffusion models,

Y . Cheng, K. Yamashita, J. Follum, and N. Yu, “Adversarial purification for data-driven power system event classifiers with diffusion models,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025

2025
[22]

Detecting adversarial attacks in time-series data,

M. G. Abdu-Aguye, W. Gomaa, Y . Makihara, and Y . Yagi, “Detecting adversarial attacks in time-series data,” inIEEE ICASSP, 2020, pp. 3092–3096

2020
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02613 , year=

X. Ma, B. Li, Y . Wang, S. M. Erfani, S. Wijewickrema, G. Schoenebeck, D. Song, M. E. Houle, and J. Bailey, “Characterizing adversar- ial subspaces using local intrinsic dimensionality,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02613, 2018

work page arXiv 2018
[24]

Exploiting vulnerabilities of load forecasting through adversarial attacks,

Y . Chen, Y . Tan, and B. Zhang, “Exploiting vulnerabilities of load forecasting through adversarial attacks,” inProceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on future energy systems, 2019, pp. 1–11

2019
[25]

Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline,

Z. Wang, W. Yan, and T. Oates, “Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline,” inInternational joint conference on neural networks. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1578–1585

2017
[26]

Real-time adversarial attacks,

Y . Gong, B. Li, C. Poellabauer, and Y . Shi, “Real-time adversarial attacks,” inProceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019, pp. 4672–4680

2019
[27]

Adversarial examples in the physical world,

A. Kurakin, I. J. Goodfellow, and S. Bengio, “Adversarial examples in the physical world,” inArtificial intelligence safety and security. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018, pp. 99–112

2018
[28]

Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks,

J. Lin, C. Song, K. He, L. Wang, and J. E. Hopcroft, “Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06281, 2019

work page arXiv 1908
[29]

Individual Household Electric Power Consumption,

G. Hebrail and A. Berard, “Individual Household Electric Power Consumption,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2006, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C58K54

work page doi:10.24432/c58k54 2006
[30]

(2022) Pecan street dataport

Pecan Street Inc. (2022) Pecan street dataport. [Online]. Available: https://www.pecanstreet.org/dataport/

2022