MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225781425 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3171262

Real-Time Detection of False Readings in Smart Grid AMI Using Deep and Ensemble Learning

2022· article· en· W4225781425 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammed J. Abdulaal, Mohamed I. Ibrahem, Mohamed Mahmoud, Junaid Khalid, Abdulah Jeza Aljohani, Ahmad H. Milyani, Abdullah Abusorrah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectricity Theft Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooKing Abdulaziz UniversityTennessee Tech University
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEnsemble learningSmart gridGridMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the advanced metering infrastructure, smart meters are deployed at the consumers’ side to regularly transmit fine-grained electricity consumption readings to the system operator (SO) for billing and real-time load monitoring and energy management. However, fraudulent consumers may compromise their meters to launch electricity-theft cyberattacks by reporting low-consumption readings to reduce their bills. These false readings not only cause financial losses but also degrade the grid’s performance because they are used for energy management and load estimate. The existing solutions in the literature focus only on securing the billing, so they are not designed to detect the attacks in real time, and thus the SO may use false readings for a long period of time in load monitoring and energy management until they are identified. In this paper, we propose a general ensemble-based deep-learning detector that enables the SO to detect false readings in real time. To do that, we first train several deep learning models on samples generated from a sliding window of the readings. Then, we use the best-performing model to train several models on different ratios of false readings and use them in our ensemble-based detector. Extensive experiments are conducted, and the results indicate that comparing to the literature, our detector can detect the false readings after sending a few false readings (around 15) comparing to the existing daily and weekly detection approaches that need 144 and 1,008 readings, respectively.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations69
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicElectricity Theft Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207