MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182227832 · doi:10.1109/tac.2021.3094737

Synthesis of Optimal Multiobjective Attack Strategies for Controlled Systems Modeled by Probabilistic Automata

2021· article· en· W3182227832 on OpenAlexafffund
Rômulo Meira-Góes, R.H. Kwong, Stéphane Lafortune

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutomatonProbabilistic logicComputer scienceMathematical optimizationProbabilistic automatonMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we study the security of control systems in the context of the supervisory control layer of stochastic discrete-event systems. Control systems heavily rely on correct communication between the plant and the controller. In this article, we consider that such communication is partially compromised by a malicious attacker. The attacker has the ability to modify a subset of the sensor readings and mislead the supervisor, with the goal of inducing the system into an unsafe state. We consider this problem from the attacker’s viewpoint and investigate the synthesis of an attack strategy for systems modeled as probabilistic automata. Specifically, we investigate the synthesis of attack functions constrained by multiple objectives. We proceed in two steps. First, we quantify each attack strategy based on the likelihood of successfully reaching an unsafe state. Based on this quantification, we study the problem of synthesizing attack functions with the maximum likelihood of successfully reaching an unsafe state. Second, we consider the problem of synthesizing attack functions that have the maximum likelihood of successfully reaching an unsafe state while minimizing a cost function, i.e., the synthesis of attack functions is constrained by multiple objectives. Our solution methodology is based on mapping these problems to optimal control problems for Markov decision processes, specifically, a probabilistic reachability problem and a stochastic shortest path problem.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207