MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285293659 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2022.3175148

Resilience Enhancement of Pilot Protection in Power Systems

2022· article· en· W4285293659 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Kemmeugne, Amir Abiri Jahromi, Deepa Kundur

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Denial-of-service attackElectric power systemComputer securityController (irrigation)SCADAComputer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineeringThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns about the cybersecurity and resilience of power systems have heightened in electric utilities and regulatory agencies over the past decade mainly because of the unpredictable target, location and scale of cyberattacks and the potential severity of consequences. The cybersecurity of pilot protection is paramount in bulk power systems considering their prevalence and the crucial role they play in protecting critical assets and preventing large system disturbances and major blackouts. This paper investigates the resilience of pilot protection using a co-simulation platform based on OPAL-RT simulator and Riverbed Modeler. It is demonstrated that software-defined networking for operational technology (OT SDN) significantly improves the resilience of pilot protection to false data injection (FDI) attacks compared to traditional networks. Moreover, the resilience of OT SDN based pilot protection to denial of service (DoS) attack against the SDN controller is investigated both in the proactive and reactive modes of operation. The simulation results verified the resilience of OT SDN controller in OT SDN based pilot protection to DoS attacks in the proactive mode of operation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power DeliverySame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207