Detecting Stealthy False Data Injection Using Machine Learning in Smart Grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging power industries, together with the increase in demand from industrial and residential customers, are the main incentive for policy makers to define a road map to the next-generation power system called the smart grid. In the smart grid, the overall monitoring costs will be decreased, but at the same time, the risk of cyber attacks might be increased. Recently, a new type of attacks (called the stealth attack) has been introduced, which cannot be detected by the traditional bad data detection using state estimation. In this paper, we show how normal operations of power networks can be statistically distinguished from the case under stealthy attacks. We propose two machine-learning-based techniques for stealthy attack detection. The first method utilizes supervised learning over labeled data and trains a distributed support vector machine (SVM). The design of the distributed SVM is based on the alternating direction method of multipliers, which offers provable optimality and convergence rate. The second method requires no training data and detects the deviation in measurements. In both methods, principal component analysis is used to reduce the dimensionality of the data to be processed, which leads to lower computation complexities. The results of the proposed detection methods on IEEE standard test systems demonstrate the effectiveness of both schemes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".