MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984419556 · doi:10.1109/tst.2014.6787363

Energy-theft detection issues for advanced metering infrastructure in smart grid

2014· article· en· W1984419556 on OpenAlexafffund
Rong Jiang, Rongxing Lu, Ye Wang, Jun Luo, Shen Chang-xiang, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueTsinghua Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectricity Theft Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer securitySmart gridSmart meterComputer scienceMetering modeCritical infrastructureResource (disambiguation)Energy (signal processing)EngineeringComputer networkElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the proliferation of smart grid research, the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) has become the first ubiquitous and fixed computing platform. However, due to the unique characteristics of AMI, such as complex network structure, resource-constrained smart meter, and privacy-sensitive data, it is an especially challenging issue to make AMI secure. Energy theft is one of the most important concerns related to the smart grid implementation. It is estimated that utility companies lose more than $25 billion every year due to energy theft around the world. To address this challenge, in this paper, we discuss the background of AMI and identify major security requirements that AMI should meet. Specifically, an attack tree based threat model is first presented to illustrate the energy-theft behaviors in AMI. Then, we summarize the current AMI energy-theft detection schemes into three categories, i.e., classification-based, state estimation-based, and game theory-based ones, and make extensive comparisons and discussions on them. In order to provide a deep understanding of security vulnerabilities and solutions in AMI and shed light on future research directions, we also explore some open challenges and potential solutions for energy-theft detection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations326
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTsinghua Science & TechnologySame topicElectricity Theft Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207