MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2878562610 · doi:10.1109/iccw.2018.8403559

Taxonomy Analysis of Security Aspects in Cyber Physical Systems Applications

2018· article· en· W2878562610 on OpenAlexaff
Amjad Gawanmeh, Ahmad Alomari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCyber-physical systemSmart gridComputer securityScope (computer science)Access controlSecurity controlsSecurity analysisRisk analysis (engineering)Data scienceControl (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of Cyber Physical Systems is based on using recent computing, communication, and control methods to design and operate intelligent and autonomous systems that can provide using innovative technologies. The existence of several critical applications within the scope of cyber physical systems results in many security and privacy concerns. On the other hand, the distributive nature of these CPS increases security risks. In addition, certain CPS, such as medical ones, generate and process sensitive data regularly, hence, this data must be protected at all levels of generation, processing, and transmission. In this paper, we present a taxonomy based analysis for the state of the art work on security issues in CPS. We identify four types of analysis for security issues in CPS: Modeling, Detection, Prevention, and Response. In addition, we identified six applications of CPS where security is relevant: eHealth and medical, smart grid and power related, vehicular technologies, industrial control and manufacturing, autonomous systems and UAVs, and finally IoT related issues. Then we mapped existing works in the literature into these categories.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207