Cognitive Dynamic System for Control and Cyber-Attack Detection in Smart Grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a new way of thinking that characterizes itself by uniting two entities, namely state estimation in the smart grid (SG) and cognitive dynamic system (CDS). False data injection (FDI) attacks are a family of new attacks that have been considered to be the most dangerous cyber-attack as it leads to cascaded bad decision making throughout the SG network, which can lead to severe repercussions. The conventional state estimation and bad data detection techniques, which have been applied to reduce observation errors and detect bad data in energy system state estimators, cannot detect FDI attacks. Here, we bring into play an objective-seeking system to act as the supervisor of the SG network. To this end, we propose to introduce a new metric for the SG: the entropic state. The entropic state has two purposes: 1) it provides an indication of the grid's health on a cycle-to-cycle basis and 2) it can be used to detect FDI attacks. Consequently, improving the entropic state is the goal of the supervisor. To achieve that objective, the supervisor dynamically optimizes the state estimation process by reconfiguring the weights of the sensors in the network. With optimality in mind, the CDS is the superior choice for the supervisory system. In this structure, the CDS interacts with the SG network, which is considered as the environment. Computer simulations are carried out on a 4-bus and the IEEE 14-bus systems to highlight the performance of the proposed approach in detecting both bad data and FDI attacks in the SG, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".