MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226284643 · doi:10.1109/tcns.2022.3165086

Asymmetric Vulnerability of Measurement and Control Channels in Closed-Loop Systems

2022· article· en· W4226284643 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlControl theory (sociology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Control systemLinear systemVulnerability (computing)Mathematical optimizationQuadratic equationGaussianOptimal controlComputer scienceMathematicsControl (management)EngineeringPhysicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the vulnerability of measurement and control channels in closed-loop systems. The problem of optimal stealthy attacks on linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) control is analyzed. Different types of stealthiness are considered, including the probability distribution of innovations and their whiteness. For stealthy attacks on two different channels, the worst-case attacks that maximize LQG costs while satisfying different stealthiness constraints are obtained and compared. It is shown that worst-case attacks on the two channels have different properties, which depend on system parameters as well as the threshold of the relaxed stealthiness constraint. The asymmetric vulnerability of the two channels is illustrated by numerical examples.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · 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