MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070541677 · doi:10.1109/iccchina.2013.6671200

PPPA: A practical privacy-preserving aggregation scheme for smart grid communications

2013· article· en· W2070541677 on OpenAlexaff
Min Lu, Zhiguo Shi, Rongxing Lu, Ruixue Sun, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridData aggregatorDifferential privacyAuthentication (law)Default gatewayComputer networkScheme (mathematics)GridCryptographyInformation privacyAccess controlComputer securitySecurity analysisWireless sensor networkData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Characterized by time-of-using pricing, better capacity, and usage planning, smart grid has attracted considerable attention in recent years. However, one of the research challenges in smart grid is the privacy issue due to too much sensitive and real-time user data involved. In this paper, we propose a practical privacy-preserving aggregation scheme, named PPPA, for secure smart grid communications. PPPA utilizes the lightweight cryptographic aggregation technique to achieve provable security guarantee, the differential privacy technique to achieve privacy preservation of each individual user, and the quad tree structure to achieve failure tolerance. For data communication from users to control center, data aggregation is conducted directly on ciphertexts at local gateway without decryption, and the aggregation results are reported by relays to the control center. Through extensive analysis, we demonstrate that PPPA can not only provide authentication and guarantee the data integrity, but also achieve strong privacy-preserving for each user, and thus it is feasible in practical smart grid scenarios.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207