Bibliographic record
Abstract
Networked-Control Systems (NCSs), a type of cyber-physical systems, consist of tightly integrated computing, communication and control technologies. While being very flexible environments, they are vulnerable to computing and networking attacks. Recent NCSs hacking incidents had major impact. They call for more research on cyber-physical security. Fears about the use of quantum computing to break current cryptosystems make matters worse. While the quantum threat motivated the creation of new disciplines to handle the issue, such as post-quantum cryptography, other fields have overlooked the existence of quantum-enabled adversaries. This is the case of cyber-physical defense research, a distinct but complementary discipline to cyber-physical protection. Cyber-physical defense refers to the capability to detect and react in response to cyber-physical attacks. Concretely, it involves the integration of mechanisms to identify adverse events and prepare response plans, during and after incidents occur. In this paper, we assume that the eventually available quantum computer will provide an advantage to adversaries against defenders, unless they also adopt this technology. We envision the necessity for a paradigm shift, where an increase of adversarial resources because of quantum supremacy does not translate into a higher likelihood of disruptions. Consistently with current system design practices in other areas, such as the use of artificial intelligence for the reinforcement of attack detection tools, we outline a vision for next generation cyber-physical defense layers leveraging ideas from quantum computing and machine learning. Through an example, we show that defenders of NCSs can learn and improve their strategies to anticipate and recover from attacks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".