MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142336382 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3070918

Distributed Event-Triggered Consensus-Based Control of DC Microgrids in Presence of DoS Cyber Attacks

2021· article· en· W3142336382 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Mola, Nader Meskin, K. Khorasani, Ahmed Massoud

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersQatar National LibraryQatar National Research FundFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgQatar Foundation
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackMicrogridComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Linear matrix inequalityController (irrigation)Decentralised systemEvent (particle physics)Distributed computingControl (management)The InternetMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the problem of distributed event-based control of large scale power systems in presence of denial-of-service (DoS) cyber attacks is addressed. Towards this end, a direct current (DC) microgrid composed of multiple interconnected distributed generation units (DGUs) is considered. Voltage stability is guaranteed by utilizing decentralized local controllers for each DGU. A distributed discrete-time event-triggered (ET) consensus-based control strategy is then designed for current sharing in the DGUs. Through this mechanism, transmissions occur while a specified event is triggered to prevent unessential utilization of communication resources. The asymptotic stability of the ET-based controller is shown formally by using Lyapunov stability via linear matrix inequality (LMI) conditions. The behavior of the DGUs subject to DoS cyber attacks are also investigated and sufficient conditions for secure current sharing are obtained. Towards this end, a switching framework is considered between the communication and attack intervals in order to derive sufficient conditions on frequency and duration of DoS cyber attacks to reach the secure current sharing. The validity and capabilities of the presented approach is confirmed through a simulation case study.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207