MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606805244 · doi:10.1145/3055386.3055387

Impact of Cyber Attacks on Data Integrity in Transient Stability Control

2017· article· en· W2606805244 on OpenAlexaff
Abdallah Farraj, Eman Hammad, Deepa Kundur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)Computer scienceSmart gridElectric power systemStability (learning theory)Data integrityParametric statisticsElectronic stability controlPower gridLinearizationControl (management)Computer securityPower (physics)EngineeringMathematicsNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we consider cyber attacks that target data integrity in smart grid systems. We investigate the impact of false data injection (FDI) attacks on distributed transient stability control schemes. We consider a general formulation for data integrity attacks on energy storage system (ESS)-based control schemes. We focus on the parametric feedback linearization (PFL) transient stability control scheme, and we derive analytical expressions for the errors in rotors' speed and angle as a result of the cyber attack. The IEEE 68-bus test power system is used to numerically evaluate the impact of example attacks and to draw valuable insights.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207