MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287667853 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.06196

Cyber Attack and Machine Induced Fault Detection and Isolation Methodologies for Cyber-Physical Systems

2020· preprint· en· W4287667853 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mahdi Taheri, K. Khorasani, Iman Shames, Nader Meskin

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQatar National Research FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de la Défense NationaleFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgQatar Foundation
KeywordsCyber-physical systemAdversaryComputer scienceIsolation (microbiology)Fault detection and isolationComputer securityReplay attackCyber-attackObserver (physics)ActuatorDetectorCovertReal-time computingAuthentication (law)Artificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the problem of simultaneous cyber attack and fault detection and isolation (CAFDI) in cyber-physical systems (CPS) is studied. The proposed solution methodology consists of two filters on the plant and the command and control (C\&C) sides of the CPS and an unknown input observer (UIO) based detector on the plant side. Conditions under which the proposed methodology can detect deception attacks, such as covert attacks, zero dynamics attacks, and replay attacks are characterized. An advantage of the proposed methodology is that one does not require a fully secured communication link which implies that the communication link can be compromised by the adversary while it is used to transmit the C\&C side observer estimates. Also, it is assumed that adversaries have access to parameters of the system, filters, and the UIO-based detector, however, they do not have access to all the communication link channels. Conditions under which, using the communication link cyber attacks, the adversary cannot eliminate the impact of actuator and sensor cyber attacks are investigated. To illustrate the capabilities and effectiveness of the proposed CAFDI methodologies, simulation case studies are provided and comparisons with detection methods that are available in the literature are included to demonstrate the advantages and benefits of our proposed solutions.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.089 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207