Adversarial AI applied to cross-user inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation in human activity recognition using wireless signals

Muhammad Hassan; Tom Kelsey; Fahrurrozi Rahman

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0298888

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 18, 2023
19 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Lei Chu, Editor PONE-D-23-32286Adversarial AI applied to cross-user inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation in human activity recognition using wireless signalsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kelsey, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 03 2024 11:59PM.. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Lei Chu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1-10 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for submitting your manuscript. We have now completed the review process, and I am writing to inform you of the decision regarding your submission. After careful consideration and a thorough evaluation by our peer reviewers, we have decided that your manuscript can only be accepted for publication following major revisions. The reviewers have raised several important points that need to be addressed before we can move forward. We appreciate the opportunity to consider your work and believe that these revisions will significantly improve the manuscript’s impact and clarity. If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding the reviewers' comments or the revision process, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for considering PLOS ONE for your work. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In this paper, adversarial AI has been applied to cross-user inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation in human activity recognition using wireless signals. The proposed idea is new and interesting. The authors also conducted extensive experiments. I can recommend this paper for a publication. However, there are several main concerns that need to be addressed properly. 1.The paper's abstract needs further revision. The authors should shorten the abstract in a precise way. 2.The main contributions should be summarized one by one in the introduction. 3.In related works, the authors summarize previous literatures instead of only listing them. On this basis, the novelty should be highlighted by presenting what has been previously explored or not. 4.The authors should place the related work section after the introduction section. 5.In particular, I strongly recommend the authors to restructure the tables and enlarge the font size, so as to make them more clear. 6.I also recommend the authors to refer to related activity recognition literatures:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110789; 10.1109/TKDE.2023.3277839; 10.1109/JBHI.2023.3275438; 10.1109/TII.2023.3315773. Reviewer #2: Adversarial AI applied to cross-user inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation in human activity recognition using wireless signals – Comments This submission proposes a deep learning framework that deals with the inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation problem in human activity recognition tasks. The consideration of WiFi CSI as the input is innovative and the use of adversarial AI for cross-user inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation with wireless signals addresses some significant challenges in the HAR field. However, from the proposed method and the experimental verifications of this paper, I do not think it can bring enough improvements to this field. 1.While the introduction part presents basic background information and concepts relevant to this study, a brief summary of the primary contributions at the outset would help understand the scholar value and academic impact of the research. 2.The problem definition section of the manuscript illustrates the challenges inherent in this research area, but the formulation of these issues lacks precision and clarity. A clearer definition of the problem is needed to be provided for subsequent proposed methods and experiments. 3.For the proposed adversarial AI model, firstly, the theoretical foundations of the model are not well developed and a more robust theoretical framework is needed to support the integrity of the model. Also, there is a lack of innovative approaches and unique contributions that are currently existing in the field of adversarial AI. While the network structure employed in the model is common for a variety of inputs such as images, it would be better to have explanations on specific designs for handling WiFi CSI inputs. 4.The figures used in this paper can be better structured and illustrated. In conclusion, I do not think this article can be accepted at this time. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298888.r001
Revision 1
3 Jan 2024 Author Response Thanks for your decision email. This letter details our revisions to the manuscript that take into account the reviewers’ comments. The comments are quoted in full; our comments follow each point raised. Journal Requirements: - Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Changes have been made in the previously submitted document regarding PLOS ONE's style requirements. Please see the track changes. - Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Code for the proposed model is available in a GitHub repository in open access at: https://github.com/DASAN-MMD/Code. A link to the repository is provided in the data and code availability section of the revised version. - We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1-10 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table Many thanks for reminding us about this. All the tables have been referred in the text in the revised version. Please see the track changes. Reviewer #1: - The paper's abstract needs further revision. The authors should shorten the abstract in a precise way. There are many changes and removal of content from abstract to summarise it properly. Please see the revised version. - The main contributions should be summarized one by one in the introduction. Thanks for your suggestion. Our main contributions have been summarised in the end of the introduction. Please see the revised version. - In related works, the authors summarize previous literatures instead of only listing them. On this basis, the novelty should be highlighted by presenting what has been previously explored or not. Many thanks for pointing out this area. We have discarded the irrelevant explanation and listed the previous work in the revised version. - The authors should place the related work section after the introduction section. Changes have been made as per the suggestion. - In particular, I strongly recommend the authors to restructure the tables and enlarge the font size, so as to make them more clear. Thanks for your recommendation. It was difficult to enlarge the font size in previous submission as the tables were going out of the page margin. To do that, we have split each of the old tables into two and enlarged their font. - I also recommend the authors to refer to related activity recognition literatures:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110789; 10.1109/TKDE.2023.3277839; 10.1109/JBHI.2023.3275438; 10.1109/TII.2023.3315773. Thanks for referring to some of the valuable content in the similar area. We went through this content, in fact some of them are cited in our related work session. Reviewer #2: - While the introduction part presents basic background information and concepts relevant to this study, a brief summary of the primary contributions at the outset would help understand the scholar value and academic impact of the research. Thanks for your suggestion. Our main contributions have been summarised in the end of the introduction. Please see the revised version. - The problem definition section of the manuscript illustrates the challenges inherent in this research area, but the formulation of these issues lacks precision and clarity. A clearer definition of the problem is needed to be provided for subsequent proposed methods and experiments. Thanks for pointing out this. Though, in previous submission we tried to make the problem statement very simple for the reader, but we agree it’s a bit vague. We have made several changes in the problem definition in our revised version. Please see the track changes. - For the proposed adversarial AI model, firstly, the theoretical foundations of the model are not well developed and a more robust theoretical framework is needed to support the integrity of the model. Also, there is a lack of innovative approaches and unique contributions that are currently existing in the field of adversarial AI. While the network structure employed in the model is common for a variety of inputs such as images, it would be better to have explanations on specific designs for handling WiFi CSI inputs. Thanks for your comments. Additional text has been added related to specific designs for handling WiFi CSI inputs. Each module of the model has also been elaborated with mathematical expressions to provide more clarity. We completely agree with the statement that the proposed model is very common for a variety of image inputs but it’s a robust and simple model suitable for the analysis of global and sub-domain alignment using wireless sensing, which is our key contribution and its acceptability on CSI Image data for cross-user domain shifting task is a new initiative in this field. We have also shown key findings on a public CSI dataset using specific pre-processing steps. In summary, our model is not going to revolutionize this entire field, but it opens door for many key challenges in this field as future directions, such as investigating combined cross-environmental and cross-user features to make the WiFi sensing more appealing and applicable. - The figures used in this paper can be better structured and illustrated. We have improved figure structure. See the revised version. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298888.r002
1 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Sunder Ali Khowaja, Editor Adversarial AI applied to cross-user inter-domain and intra-domain adaptation in human activity recognition using wireless signals PONE-D-23-32286R1 Dear Dr. Kelsey, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sunder Ali Khowaja, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The reviewers have submitted the reports. The reviewers are satisfied with the revisions. However, one of the reviewers have minor concerns, which is the description of the work being done should be improved. Authors should incorporate the comments while submitting the final version of the paper. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my concerns satisfactorily, and I can recommend this paper for a publication. Reviewer #2: The experimental analysis of the article is relatively comprehensive, and the relevant code and data has open source. However, the description of the article needs to be carefully checked. For example, please check the description in contribution for errors. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298888.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Feb 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sunder Ali Khowaja, Editor PONE-D-23-32286R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kelsey, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sunder Ali Khowaja Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298888.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .