MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314200155 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2016.2542859

Optimal Tree Construction Model for Cyber-Attacks to Wide Area Measurement Systems

2016· article· en· W2314200155 on OpenAlexaff
Reem Kateb, Mosaddek Hossain Kamal Tushar, Chadi Assi, Mourad Debbabi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridPhasorComputer scienceMulticastSoftware deploymentComputer networkGridRouting (electronic design automation)Distributed computingReal-time computingElectric power systemEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid deployment of phasor measurements in smart grid transmission system has opened opportunities to utilize new applications and enhance the grid operations. Thus, the smart grid has become more dependent on communication and information technologies, such as wide area measurement systems (WAMSs). WAMS are used to collect real-time measurement from sensors across widely dispersed areas. Such systems will improve real-time monitoring and control; however, recent studies have pointed out that the use of WAMS introduces significant vulnerabilities to the smart grid that can be leveraged by attackers. Therefore, preventing or reducing the damage of cyber attacks is critical to the security of the smart grid. In this paper, we focus on the relation between cyber-attack propagation and IP multicast routing, which is an essential aspect to the collection of phasor measurement units (PMUs) measurements. To this extent, we formulate the problem as the construction of a multicast tree that minimizes the propagation of cyber-attacks, while satisfying real-time and capacity requirements. The proposed attack propagation multicast tree is evaluated using IEEE 14-bus, IEEE 24-bus, IEEE 39-bus, the New England 39-bus, and IEEE 57-bus test systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207