MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advanced Cyber-Physical Attack Classification with Extreme Gradient Boosting for Smart Transmission Grids

2019· article· en· W3003436024 on OpenAlexaff
Chengming Hu, Jun Yan, Chun Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridTestbedCyber-physical systemClassifier (UML)Boosting (machine learning)Real-time computingData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The power grids are transforming into the cyber-physical smart grid with increasing two-way communications and abundant data flows. Despite the efficiency and reliability promised by this transformation, the growing threats and incidences of cyber attacks targeting the physical power systems have exposed severe vulnerabilities. To detect and identify attack threats from the heterogeneous cyber-physical information in the smart grid, this paper proposes an ensemble learning-based attack classifier using extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Compare with the popular single-classifier based approaches, the XG Boost-based attack classifier can effectively learn from the multi-sourced data to pinpoint attacks from normal and fault scenarios. Considering the potential imbalance of data samples among normal, fault, and attack samples, the paper also utilizes imbalance learning technique to boost the balance of data and subsequently the performance of XGboost. The proposed classifier is evaluated on a cyber-physical power system dataset collected from a high-fidelity hardware-in-the-loop smart grid testbed. The overall classification accuracy achieves over 99%, an effective 4% increase over the state-of-the-art, while maintaining over 95% accuracy in more complex, dynamic scenarios.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207