MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971466910 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2939089

Cognitive Risk Control for Mitigating Cyber-Attack in Smart Grid

2019· article· en· W2971466910 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Irshaad Oozeer, S. Haykin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridComputer securityCyber-attackControl (management)CognitionCognitive radioCyber-physical systemTelecommunicationsWirelessArtificial intelligenceOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we extend our previous research on uniting the Cognitive Dynamic Systems (CDS) and the Smart Grid (SG) by introducing Cognitive Risk Control (CRC). The CDS is a structured physical model and research tool inspired by certain features of the brain. The CRC is an advanced feature of the CDS that embodies the concept of predictive adaptation allowing it to bring risk under control in situations involving unexpected or abnormal uncertainty such as a cyber-attack. The False Data Injection (FDI) attack is a special class of cyber-attack targeting the SG that is able to bypass the traditional bad data detection techniques. Here we will demonstrate how the entropic state, which is the objective function of the CDS, is able to detect and bring FDI attacks under control under the action of CRC. Through Task-Switch control, the CDS is able to switch on a new executive with different set of actions that affects the system configuration to bring the risk under control during an attack. With the CDS acting as the supervisor of the SG, simulations are carried out on a 4 bus-system and IEEE 14-bus system to demonstrate the capability of CRC when faced with FDI attacks. The results show that this system has great potential for future SG systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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