High-Order Liquid Evidence Encoding for Gradual GNSS Spoofing Detection in Autonomous Driving

Fatima Ashraf; Junbiao Pang; Muhammad Ayub Sabir

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

High-Order Liquid Evidence Encoding for Gradual GNSS Spoofing Detection in Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tracking GNSS–motion mismatch at three time orders catches gradual spoofing.

desk verdict A plausible but statistically underpowered empirical architecture paper: the high-order residual evidence idea is nice, but the headline F1 margins are within likely noise on a 3-segment test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11790 v1 pith:QYV4CJ4T submitted 2026-08-12 cs.LG

Muhammad Ayub Sabir , Junbiao Pang , Fatima Ashraf This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords GNSSspoofingdetectionautonomousdrivingliquidneuralnetworkshigh-orderresidualevidencegradualattackscausaltemporalmodelingsensorconsistencyAV-GPSdataset

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Gradual GNSS spoofing is hard to see in any single position fix, but the paper argues it shows up as a slowly growing disagreement between the displacement implied by consecutive GNSS positions and the displacement implied by onboard motion sensors. The authors build a residual from that disagreement, normalize it by expected sensing uncertainty, and split it into three evidence streams: the residual level, its first difference, and its second difference. Each stream goes through its own adaptive liquid encoder, and the encoded states are coupled hierarchically to produce a causal spoofing probability for the current time window using only past and current observations. On the AV-GPS vehicle benchmark the method reports the highest F1 among LSTM, GRU, TCN, and Transformer baselines on the in-domain and transition subsets, and it detects both labeled normal-to-attack transitions within four sampling steps. If correct, this offers a causal, physically grounded way to catch subtle spoofing that generic sequence models miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the uncertainty-normalized residual $\eta_t = (\Sigma_t + \epsilon I_2)^{-1/2} (\Delta p^g_t - \Delta p^u_t)$, comparing consecutive GNSS displacement with displacement from onboard velocity, and its first and second finite differences $\eta^{(0)}_t$, $\eta^{(1)}_t$, $\eta^{(2)}_t$. These three orders form separate input streams, each processed by an adaptive liquid encoder whose time constant $\tau^{(k)}_{t,\ell}$ depends on the current evidence and previous hidden state, so memory adapts within the window. The hidden states are then coupled hierarchically—first-order state conditioned on zeroth-order context, second-order conditioned on that combined representation—before a terminal fusion layer yields the endpoint spoofing probability. This machinery is what lets the detector separate the persistence of the mismatch from its rate of change.

What would settle it

Synthesize a spoofing trace on the AV-GPS normal recordings by integrating the onboard velocity plus a slowly growing ramp error into the GNSS position stream, replay it through the trained model, and show that the endpoint spoofing probability stays below threshold; alternately, tamper with the CAN or IMU stream instead of GNSS and show the detector fails to separate attack from normal driving.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the discriminating signature of a gradual GNSS spoofing attack is not the size of the residual between GNSS-implied and onboard-motion-implied displacement but the way that residual evolves. It shows that representing the residual at three temporal orders—current level, step-to-step change, and change of that change—as separate evidence streams, encoding each with an adaptive liquid state whose effective time constant depends on the input, and then fusing the stream states hierarchically, produces higher F1 and lower false-alarm rate than feeding the same inputs to a single LSTM, GRU, TCN, or Transformer. The design is strictly causal: each window is processed independently from zero-initialized states, no observation after the endpoint is used, and no window crosses a segment boundary. Ablations attribute the gain to a combination of the high-order residual representation and the liquid encoder, with the second-order stream contributing mainly to false-alarm control and overall balance.

Load-bearing premise

The detector's input collapses if the attacker can manipulate the onboard motion measurements or craft GNSS displacements that remain kinematically consistent with them, since the residual then no longer separates attack from normal driving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A causal detector that uses only current and past observations can flag spoofing at the window endpoint, making it deployable in real-time pipelines without lookahead bias.
Separate encoders for residual level, first difference, and second difference outperform a single shared sequence model, suggesting that temporal-scale separation is a useful inductive bias for subtle anomaly detection.
The second-order residual stream mainly improves false-alarm control and overall balance rather than raw attack recall, so high-order evidence should be evaluated on precision-recall trade-offs, not just sensitivity.
Transfer without retraining to a different location retains near-perfect attack discrimination (FNR below 0.002) but shows weaker false-alarm robustness, indicating that normal-driving variability across environments is the remaining challenge.

Reading between the lines

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

If an attacker learns to craft GNSS displacements that stay consistent with onboard motion—for example by pacing the spoofed drift to match speed and yaw signals—the residual $r_t$ becomes uninformative and the whole evidence hierarchy collapses; a direct test would be to synthesize such kinematically consistent attacks on the AV-GPS recordings.
The same high-order residual-evidence construction could transfer to other consistency-checking problems where two independent measurements of the same physical quantity drift apart slowly, such as radar-versus-camera odometry disagreement or IMU-versus-visual-inertial drift.
The two-transition delay result is illustrative rather than statistical; a natural extension is to collect or simulate many more normal-to-attack transitions to estimate detection-delay distributions instead of point values.
The fixed threshold $\gamma=0.5$, selected by validation F1, leaves calibration on the table; the near-ceiling AUC on the cross-location subset suggests that threshold or anomaly-score calibration could recover false-alarm robustness without losing attack sensitivity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a competently executed empirical paper on a real safety problem, and the reported gains over generic temporal baselines are plausible but not statistically established. The margins are thin and the test set is effectively three independent segments.

What's new is the specific architecture: three-stream residual evidence (level, first difference, second difference) with separate liquid time-constant encoders and hierarchical coupling. The ingredients are known, but the combination is not in the literature as far as I can tell. The paper does several things right. The causal window formulation is careful; no leakage across segment boundaries. The uncertainty normalization of the residual is a nice touch. The ablations on evidence order and on encoder type are credible, and they show the second-order stream helps balance precision and recall rather than uniformly improving metrics. The Dataset 2 transfer weakness is reported honestly, and the near-ceiling AUC there is acknowledged as driven by attack separability, with false-alarm transfer the real limitation.

The soft spots are real. The headline F1 result rests on a single run with no confidence intervals, no seed variation, and no segment-level resampling. On Dataset 1 the test partition has only 3 held-out segments, so the 10,813 test windows are heavily autocorrelated; a +0.0057 F1 margin over TCN is within the range of run-to-run noise. Same story on Dataset 3, where the margin is +0.0046. The baseline models are not specified enough—what input features and hyperparameters did the LSTM/GRU/TCN/Transformer use? Without that, the comparison might reflect feature engineering as much as architecture. Also missing is a dumb residual baseline: a fixed threshold on the uncertainty-normalized residual magnitude. That would help calibrate how much the temporal machinery actually buys.

Two other things. Sigma_t (the residual uncertainty matrix) and the chi_t context composition are described only vaguely; I'd want the exact construction to reproduce the method. And the threat model assumes the attacker controls GNSS but not CAN/IMU; that is a legitimate scoping assumption, but the paper should be explicit that the detector inherits that assumption.

Who is this for? People working on GNSS spoofing detection for vehicles, and to a lesser degree anyone interested in liquid time-constant networks applied to residual signals. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push for repeated runs, better baseline documentation, a simple threshold baseline, and a synthetic experiment with controlled residual evolution. I would not cite it as a benchmark result until the statistics are tightened. Reading group maybe—the architecture is interesting, the evidence is not yet.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a causal framework for GNSS spoofing detection in autonomous driving. It constructs a physics-guided residual between GNSS-implied displacement and onboard-motion-derived displacement, normalizes it by an uncertainty estimate, forms zeroth-, first-, and second-order finite-difference evidence streams, encodes each stream with a separate adaptive liquid encoder, and fuses the order-specific states hierarchically for endpoint prediction. Experiments on three AV-GPS subsets compare the method with LSTM, GRU, TCN, and Transformer baselines, report ablations of the evidence orders and the encoder, analyze sensitivity to L, d_h, and tau_min, and include a Dataset 2 cross-location transfer test. The central claim is the highest F1-scores on Dataset 1 and Dataset 3, 0.9535 and 0.9777, respectively, with both Dataset 3 transitions detected within four sampling steps.

Significance. If supported by uncertainty-aware evaluation, the work would be a useful contribution: the causal-window formulation is principled, the high-order residual evidence is physically interpretable, the ablations isolate the proposed components, and the public code and data support reproduction. The paper is also honest about its limitations, explicitly labeling Dataset 3 as illustrative and reporting the Dataset 2 false-alarm degradation. The main weakness is that the headline comparisons are single-run point estimates on highly autocorrelated test windows, so the current evidence does not yet establish the claimed ranking. I found no circularity: training and test partitions are disjoint and the decision threshold is fixed before held-out evaluation.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-A/IV-B, Table II] The headline F1 comparisons rest on single point estimates with no uncertainty quantification. Dataset 1 has only 3 independent test segments, and Dataset 3 is a single continuous sequence; within each segment the 10,813 and 627 test windows overlap heavily and are not independent samples. The reported F1 margins over the best baseline are 0.0057 on Dataset 1 and 0.0046 on Dataset 3, and the manuscript provides no basis for assessing whether these differences exceed segment-level or run-to-run variability. The authors should provide seed variance or segment-level bootstrap intervals, or alternatively rephrase the abstract and conclusion claims as results on a fixed split.
[Section IV-B] The baselines are not sufficiently specified: it is not stated whether LSTM, GRU, TCN, and Transformer receive the same causal evidence vector e_t or the same order-specific streams, nor what architectural sizes, regularization, and training budgets are used. Without this information, the comparison may be confounded by feature engineering or tuning choices rather than isolating the proposed architecture.
[Section IV-D, Table IV] The ablation is used to support the claim that the three residual orders provide complementary information, but the point estimates are not monotonic: on Dataset 1, adding the first-order components to the residual level decreases F1 from 0.9350 to 0.9272, and the full model's gain over the level-only variant is 0.0185. With single runs, the complementarity conclusion is not supported. Repeated runs or bootstrapped intervals are needed for the ablations as well.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section V] The wording 'achieves the highest F1-scores' should be qualified with 'on the fixed split of this study' or accompanied by uncertainty intervals, especially because Section IV-A itself cautions that the Dataset 3 results are illustrative event-level evidence.
[Section III-B, Eq. (6)] The residual uncertainty matrix Sigma_t is described only in general terms; please specify how it is estimated from the normal reference data and how the 'causal adjustment' using GNSS-quality information is implemented, since the code is otherwise the only guide.
[Section III-F] The decision map rho_psi is not defined; please state its form (for example, a linear map or a small MLP) and whether it has its own regularization.
[Throughout] There are copy-editing artifacts such as 'A V-GPS' with a spurious space in the abstract and in several places in the body; the dataset name should be rendered consistently as 'AV-GPS'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained, with disjoint training/test partitions, fixed threshold, and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper derives a GNSS–motion inconsistency residual from measured displacements (Eqs. 3–5), normalizes it with an uncertainty matrix estimated from the training partition, and forms zeroth-, first-, and second-order finite differences (Eq. 7). These features are deterministic functions of the input observations, not of the target labels. The liquid encoders, hierarchical coupling, and decision head are trained with a supervised binary cross-entropy objective (Eq. 16) on Dataset 1 training windows, with validation-based checkpoint selection. The test partitions (3 held-out segments on Dataset 1, the entire Dataset 3 sequence, and Dataset 2) are disjoint from training and are not used for preprocessing estimation, model selection, or threshold adjustment. The decision threshold γ=0.5 is explicitly fixed before held-out evaluation. No prediction in the paper reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as an output, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation: all cited prior works are external, including the AV-GPS dataset source and the liquid-network references. The empirical claims about F1 superiority are ordinary supervised-learning evaluations; even if the statistical support is thin (only three test segments, no confidence intervals), that is a robustness and significance concern, not a circularity. The paper also explicitly labels Dataset 3 results as illustrative event-level evidence rather than a broad generalization. Therefore, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on a threat model in which onboard motion is trusted, on the accuracy of AV-GPS labels, and on the validity of a normal-reference covariance estimate. The neural network weights and hyperparameters are trained or selected on Dataset 1, with the decision threshold fixed in advance.

free parameters (6)

Window length L = 10
Selected from {5, 10, 20, 30} by validation-set F1 in the sensitivity analysis of Section IV-G; all central results use L=10.
Hidden dimension d_h = 64
Selected from {32, 64, 128} by validation-set F1 in Section IV-G.
Minimum liquid time constant tau_min = 0.10
Selected from {0.05, 0.10, 0.50, 1.00} by validation-set F1 in Section IV-G.
Decision threshold gamma = 0.5
Pre-specified in Section IV-A and applied unchanged to all evaluation subsets, but still a hand-chosen operating point.
Residual uncertainty matrix Sigma_t = estimated from designated normal reference data, estimator not specified
Used to normalize the residual in Eq. (6); the estimation and adjustment procedure is not specified, so the normalization is effectively fitted to the normal training data.
Neural network weights for liquid encoders, coupling, fusion, and decision map = learned via positive-class-weighted binary cross-entropy, Eq. (16)
All trainable parameters are fitted on Dataset 1 training windows; the reported F1 depends on this fit.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Sensor-consistency threat model: the attacker manipulates GNSS observations only, while onboard motion measurements remain trustworthy.
Section III-A states that the attacker manipulates GNSS-side observations while onboard motion measurements are not directly controlled; the residual in Eq. (5) is only discriminative under this assumption.
domain assumption Under normal operation, GNSS-implied displacement matches onboard-motion displacement up to noise, so the residual is a valid attack indicator.
The entire evidence construction in Eqs. (3)-(7) treats residual growth as attack evidence; large normal residuals would break this assumption.
domain assumption The AV-GPS dataset ground-truth labels and continuous segment boundaries are accurate.
All F1, FAR, FNR, and transition-delay results rely on labels and segment definitions inherited from GPS-IDS [3]; incorrect labels would invalidate the metrics.
domain assumption The uncertainty normalization Sigma_t estimated from normal reference data is representative of test and transfer conditions.
Eq. (6) uses Sigma_t estimated from designated normal data; the higher false-alarm rate on Dataset 2 suggests this assumption is only partially satisfied.
domain assumption GNSS and onboard velocity observations are synchronized, co-registered, and share the same planar frame and sampling interval Delta t.
Eqs. (3)-(4) compare GNSS displacement over one interval with onboard velocity times Delta t; time synchronization and lever-arm effects are not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Order Liquid Evidence Encoding for Gradual GNSS Spoofing Detection in Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYV4CJ4T

@misc{pith2026260811790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Order Liquid Evidence Encoding for Gradual GNSS Spoofing Detection in Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYV4CJ4T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11790}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)-based localization is essential for safe and reliable autonomous driving. However, spoofing attacks can manipulate vehicle position estimates. Continuous and subtle attacks are particularly difficult to detect because individual GNSS observations may remain plausible while the inconsistency between GNSS-implied displacement and onboard vehicle motion gradually increases. Existing methods often rely on static vehicle-behavior features or a single residual signal and do not explicitly model this evolution. To address this problem, we propose a causal high-order liquid evidence framework for GNSS spoofing detection. The method first constructs a physics-guided GNSS--motion inconsistency residual by comparing GNSS-implied displacement with onboard-motion-derived displacement. It then forms separate evidence streams for the residual level and its first- and second-order discrete variations, with relevant contextual cues selected according to the evidence order. Each stream is processed by a separate adaptive liquid encoder, and the resulting temporal states are hierarchically coupled to predict spoofing at the window endpoint using only current and past observations. Experiments on three subsets of the real-world AV-GPS dataset show that the proposed method achieves the highest F1-scores among the evaluated temporal models on Dataset~1 and Dataset~3, reaching 0.9535 and 0.9777, respectively. On Dataset~3, it detects both labeled normal-to-attack transitions within four sampling steps. Code and datasets are publicly available at: https://github.com/pangjunbiao/GNSS_Spoofing.git.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11790 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Sequential detection response on Dataset 3. Shaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality rate by sub-categories in 2021,

N. H. T. S. Administrationet al., “Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality rate by sub-categories in 2021,”Crash• Stats Brief Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS, vol. 813, p. 118, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Spoofing and anti- spoofing technologies of global navigation satellite system: A survey,

Z. Wu, Y . Zhang, Y . Yang, C. Liang, and R. Liu, “Spoofing and anti- spoofing technologies of global navigation satellite system: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 165 444–165 496, 2020

2020
[3]

Gps-ids: An anomaly-based gps spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,

M. M. Abrar, A. Youssef, R. Islam, S. Satam, B. S. Latibari, S. Hariri, S. Shao, S. Salehi, and P. Satam, “Gps-ids: An anomaly-based gps spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08359, 2024

arXiv 2024
[4]

A sensor fusion-based gnss spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,

S. Dasgupta, M. Rahman, M. Islam, and M. Chowdhury, “A sensor fusion-based gnss spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 23 559–23 572, 2022

2022
[5]

Prediction-Based GNSS Spoofing Attack Detection for Autonomous Vehicles

S. Dasgupta, M. Rahman, M. Islam, and M. Chowdhury, “Prediction- based gnss spoofing attack detection for autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11722, 2020

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[6]

Carrier-phase and imu based gnss spoofing detection for ground vehicles,

Z. Clements, J. E. Yoder, and T. E. Humphreys, “Carrier-phase and imu based gnss spoofing detection for ground vehicles,” inProceedings of the ION International Technical Meeting, Long Beach, CA, 2022, pp. 83–95

work page 2022
[7]

A gps spoofing detection and classification correlator-based technique using the lasso,

E. Schmidt, N. Gatsis, and D. Akopian, “A gps spoofing detection and classification correlator-based technique using the lasso,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 4224–4237, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Gps spoofing detection via crowd-sourced information for connected vehi- cles,

G. Oligeri, S. Sciancalepore, O. A. Ibrahim, and R. Di Pietro, “Gps spoofing detection via crowd-sourced information for connected vehi- cles,”Computer Networks, vol. 216, p. 109230, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 35 references

[9]

Recent advances on jamming and spoofing detection in gnss,

K. Rado ˇs, M. Brki ´c, and D. Beguˇsi´c, “Recent advances on jamming and spoofing detection in gnss,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 13, p. 4210, 2024

2024
[10]

Detecting signal spoofing attack in uavs using machine learning models,

A. Shafique, A. Mehmood, and M. Elhadef, “Detecting signal spoofing attack in uavs using machine learning models,”IEEE access, vol. 9, pp. 93 803–93 815, 2021

2021
[11]

Ma- chine learning-based gps spoofing detection and mitigation for uavs,

C. O. Namagembe, M. Ibrahim, M. A. Rahman, and P. Pillai, “Ma- chine learning-based gps spoofing detection and mitigation for uavs,” Computers, Materials, & Continua, vol. 86, no. 2, p. 1, 2026

2026
[12]

Tree-based supervised machine learning models for detecting gps spoofing attacks on uas,

G. Aissou, H. O. Slimane, S. Benouadah, and N. Kaabouch, “Tree-based supervised machine learning models for detecting gps spoofing attacks on uas,” in2021 IEEE 12th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON). IEEE, 2021, pp. 0649–0653

2021
[13]

Anomaly detection against gps spoofing attacks on connected and autonomous vehicles using learning from demonstration,

Z. Yang, J. Ying, J. Shen, Y . Feng, Q. A. Chen, Z. M. Mao, and H. X. Liu, “Anomaly detection against gps spoofing attacks on connected and autonomous vehicles using learning from demonstration,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 9462–...

2023
[14]

Infrastructure-enabled gps spoofing de- tection and correction,

F. Wang, Y . Hong, and X. Ban, “Infrastructure-enabled gps spoofing de- tection and correction,”IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 13 878–13 892, 2023

2023
[15]

Secure pose estimation for autonomous vehicles under cyber attacks,

Q. Liu, Y . Mo, X. Mo, C. Lv, E. Mihankhah, and D. Wang, “Secure pose estimation for autonomous vehicles under cyber attacks,” in2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1583–1588

2019
[16]

Security of gps/ins based on-road location tracking systems,

S. Narain, A. Ranganathan, and G. Noubir, “Security of gps/ins based on-road location tracking systems,” in2019 IEEE Symposium on Secu- rity and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 587–601

2019
[17]

Drift with devil: Security of{Multi-Sensor}fusion based localization in{High-Level} autonomous driving under{GPS}spoofing,

J. Shen, J. Y . Won, Z. Chen, and Q. A. Chen, “Drift with devil: Security of{Multi-Sensor}fusion based localization in{High-Level} autonomous driving under{GPS}spoofing,” in29th USENIX security symposium (USENIX Security 20), 2020, pp. 931–948

2020
[18]

Effect of gnss spoofing on gnss-imu data fusion-based vehicle pose estimation,

P. Bauer, “Effect of gnss spoofing on gnss-imu data fusion-based vehicle pose estimation,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 59, no. 30, pp. 150–155, 2025

2025
[19]

A reinforcement learning approach for global navigation satellite system spoofing attack detection in autonomous vehicles,

S. Dasgupta, T. Ghosh, and M. Rahman, “A reinforcement learning approach for global navigation satellite system spoofing attack detection in autonomous vehicles,”Transportation research record, vol. 2676, no. 12, pp. 318–330, 2022

2022
[20]

Securing au- tonomous vehicles against gps spoofing attacks: A deep learning ap- proach,

M. Shabbir, M. Kamal, Z. Ullah, and M. M. Khan, “Securing au- tonomous vehicles against gps spoofing attacks: A deep learning ap- proach,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 105 513–105 526, 2023

2023
[21]

Lstm-based gnss spoofing detection using low-cost spectrum sensors,

R. Calvo-Palomino, A. Bhattacharya, G. Bovet, D. Giustinianoet al., “Lstm-based gnss spoofing detection using low-cost spectrum sensors,” inThe 21st IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM 2020), 2020

2020
[22]

Deeppose: Detecting gps spoofing attack via deep recurrent neural network,

P. Jiang, H. Wu, and C. Xin, “Deeppose: Detecting gps spoofing attack via deep recurrent neural network,”Digital Communications and Networks, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 791–803, 2022

2022
[23]

Ai-based gnss spoofing attack detection for autonomous vehicles using satellite characteristics data,

S. Dasgupta, M. Rahman, and T. N. Bandi, “Ai-based gnss spoofing attack detection for autonomous vehicles using satellite characteristics data,” inProceedings of the 2023 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, 2023, pp. 514–525

2023
[24]

Lstm-based gnss spoofing detection for drone formation flights,

Z. Wen, X. Qi, T. Sato, K. Tamesue, Y . Katsuyama, K. Sako, J. Katto, and T. Sato, “Lstm-based gnss spoofing detection for drone formation flights,” inIECON 2023-49th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6. 10

2023
[25]

Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network,

Y . Su, Y . Zhao, C. Niu, R. Liu, W. Sun, and D. Pei, “Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network,” inProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2019, pp. 2828– 2837

2019
[26]

Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series,

J. Audibert, P. Michiardi, F. Guyard, S. Marti, and M. A. Zuluaga, “Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series,” inProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2020, pp. 3395–3404

2020
[27]

Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in iot,

Z. Chen, D. Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Yuan, and X. Cheng, “Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in iot,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 9179–9189, 2021

2021
[28]

Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy,

J. Xu, H. Wu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02642, 2021

2021 arXiv
[29]

Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data,

S. Tuli, G. Casale, and N. R. Jennings, “Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07284, 2022

2022 arXiv
[30]

Temporal convolutional networks for anomaly detection in time series,

Y . He and J. Zhao, “Temporal convolutional networks for anomaly detection in time series,” inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1213, no. 4. IOP Publishing, 2019, p. 042050

2019
[31]

Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,

H. Wu, T. Hu, Y . Liu, H. Zhou, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02186, 2022

2022 arXiv
[32]

Neural ordinary differential equations,

R. T. Chen, Y . Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, “Neural ordinary differential equations,”Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 31, 2018

2018
[33]

Latent ordinary differential equations for irregularly-sampled time series,

Y . Rubanova, R. T. Chen, and D. K. Duvenaud, “Latent ordinary differential equations for irregularly-sampled time series,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

2019
[34]

Liquid time- constant networks,

R. Hasani, M. Lechner, A. Amini, D. Rus, and R. Grosu, “Liquid time- constant networks,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 35, no. 9, 2021, pp. 7657–7666

2021
[35]

Closed-form continuous-time neural networks,

R. Hasani, M. Lechner, A. Amini, L. Liebenwein, A. Ray, M. Tschaikowski, G. Teschl, and D. Rus, “Closed-form continuous-time neural networks,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 992– 1003, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality rate by sub-categories in 2021,

N. H. T. S. Administrationet al., “Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality rate by sub-categories in 2021,”Crash• Stats Brief Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS, vol. 813, p. 118, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Spoofing and anti- spoofing technologies of global navigation satellite system: A survey,

Z. Wu, Y . Zhang, Y . Yang, C. Liang, and R. Liu, “Spoofing and anti- spoofing technologies of global navigation satellite system: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 165 444–165 496, 2020

2020

[3] [3]

Gps-ids: An anomaly-based gps spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,

M. M. Abrar, A. Youssef, R. Islam, S. Satam, B. S. Latibari, S. Hariri, S. Shao, S. Salehi, and P. Satam, “Gps-ids: An anomaly-based gps spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08359, 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

A sensor fusion-based gnss spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,

S. Dasgupta, M. Rahman, M. Islam, and M. Chowdhury, “A sensor fusion-based gnss spoofing attack detection framework for autonomous vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 23 559–23 572, 2022

2022

[5] [5]

Prediction-Based GNSS Spoofing Attack Detection for Autonomous Vehicles

S. Dasgupta, M. Rahman, M. Islam, and M. Chowdhury, “Prediction- based gnss spoofing attack detection for autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11722, 2020

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[6] [6]

Carrier-phase and imu based gnss spoofing detection for ground vehicles,

Z. Clements, J. E. Yoder, and T. E. Humphreys, “Carrier-phase and imu based gnss spoofing detection for ground vehicles,” inProceedings of the ION International Technical Meeting, Long Beach, CA, 2022, pp. 83–95

work page 2022

[7] [7]

A gps spoofing detection and classification correlator-based technique using the lasso,

E. Schmidt, N. Gatsis, and D. Akopian, “A gps spoofing detection and classification correlator-based technique using the lasso,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 4224–4237, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Gps spoofing detection via crowd-sourced information for connected vehi- cles,

G. Oligeri, S. Sciancalepore, O. A. Ibrahim, and R. Di Pietro, “Gps spoofing detection via crowd-sourced information for connected vehi- cles,”Computer Networks, vol. 216, p. 109230, 2022

work page 2022