MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918909322 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2902357

A Low Power WSNs Attack Detection and Isolation Mechanism for Critical Smart Grid Applications

2019· article· en· W2918909322 on OpenAlexaff
Gurpreet Singh Dhunna, Irfan Al‐Anbagi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless sensor networkSmart gridReliability (semiconductor)Quality of serviceEfficient energy useDenial-of-service attackKey distribution in wireless sensor networksComputer networkEmbedded systemDistributed computingWirelessPower (physics)EngineeringWireless networkThe InternetTelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are effective tools in many smart grid applications such as remote monitoring, equipment fault diagnostic, wireless advanced metering infrastructure, and residential energy management. WSNs are attractive tools due to their low cost, dynamic nature, ruggedness, and low-power profile. Maintaining a low-power profile is a critical design factor in WSNs. Therefore, implementing sophisticated quality of service protocols and security mechanisms in WSNs is a challenging task. Furthermore, WSNs security mechanisms should not only focus on reducing the power consumption of the sensor devices but also they should maintain high reliability and throughput needed by smart grid applications. In this paper, we present a low-power cyber-security mechanism for WSNs-based smart grid monitoring applications. Our mechanism can detect and isolate various attacks such as the denial of sleep, forge, and replay attacks in an energy efficient way. The simulation results show that our mechanism can outperform existing techniques in power efficiency while maintaining constant delay and reliability values.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207