MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preventing False Tripping Cyberattacks Against Distance Relays: A Deep Learning Approach

2019· article· en· W2990678899 on OpenAlexaff
Yew Meng Khaw, Amir Abiri Jahromi, Arani Mohammadreza F. M., Deepa Kundur, Scott Sanner, Marthe Kassouf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrippingRelayAutoencoderProtective relayComputer scienceFault (geology)Benchmark (surveying)Circuit breakerElectric power systemPower-system protectionVoltagePower (physics)Deep learningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The false tripping of circuit breakers initiated by cyberattacks on protective relays is a growing concern in power systems. This is of high importance because multiple false equipment tripping initiated by coordinated cyberattacks on protective relays can cause large scale disturbance in power systems and potentially lead to cascading failures and blackouts. In this paper, a deep learning based autoencoder is employed to identify anomalous voltage and current data injection to distance protection relays. The autoencoder is first trained with current and voltage data sets representing three-phase faults in zone 1 of a distance relay using a benchmark test system. The autoencoder is then employed to identify anomalies in voltage and current data to prevent false tripping commands by the distance relay. The simulation results verify the capability of the autoencoder model to extract signatures of three-phase faults in the intended zone of a protective relay and detect three-phase fault current and voltage data that do not contain these signatures with high accuracy.

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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207