MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292261115 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2022.3197805

Electricity-Theft Detection for Change-and-Transmit Advanced Metering Infrastructure

2022· article· en· W4292261115 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed I. Ibrahem, Mohamed Mahmoud, Fawaz Alsolami, Waleed Alasmary, Abdullah Alghamdi, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectricity Theft Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKing Abdulaziz University
KeywordsMetering modeComputer scienceElectricityCritical infrastructureComputer securityEnvironmental economicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The periodic transmission of the customers’ power consumption readings in the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) is essential for energy management and billing. To collect the readings efficiently, the change and transmit approach is adopted in AMI (CAT AMI) so that the readings are reported only when there is enough change in the consumption. However, CAT AMI suffers from malicious customers who launch electricity-theft cyberattacks by manipulating their readings to illegally reduce their bills. These attacks can cause hefty financial losses and degrade the grid performance because the readings are used for grid management. In this article, the electricity-theft problem in CAT AMI networks is investigated. We first process a real power consumption readings data set to create a benign data set and propose a new set of cyberattacks to create malicious samples. We then develop a deep-learning-based electricity-theft detection solution to identify malicious customers for the CAT AMI network. The proposed detector uses both the customers’ transmission pattern and CAT readings to learn the correlation between them in order to enhance the detector’s ability in identifying electricity thefts. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the performance of our electricity-theft detector, and the results indicate that our detector can accurately detect malicious customers and achieve higher detection rate and lower false alarm than the detectors that are trained only on the CAT readings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicElectricity Theft Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207