MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vulnerability Assessment of Machine Learning Based Short-Term Residential Load Forecast against Cyber Attacks on Smart Meters

2022· article· en· W4310529625 on OpenAlexaff
Alanoud Alrasheedi, Osarodion E. Egbomwan, Shichao Liu, Nowayer Alrashidi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNonlinear autoregressive exogenous modelSupport vector machineMachine learningRandom forestArtificial intelligenceDecision treeVulnerability (computing)Term (time)Artificial neural networkSmart gridVulnerability assessmentLong short term memoryRecurrent neural networkDeep learningData miningReal-time computingComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-Term Load Forecast at residential house level plays a critical role in home energy management system. While a variety of machine learning based load forecasting methods have been proposed, their prediction performance have not been assessed against cyber threats on smart meters which have been increasingly reported. This paper investigates the vulnerability of four extensively used machine learning algorithms for residential short-term load forecast against cyberattacks, including Nonlinear Auto Regression with external input (NARX) neural network, support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), and long-short-term memory (LSTM) deep learning. We use the REFIT dataset which collected whole-house aggregated loads at 8-second intervals continuously from 20 houses over a two-year period in the U.K. The results were determined and show the predictions using NARX and LSTM. Four cyberattack models are investigated, including pulse, scale, ramp, and random. The vulnerability assessment results indicate the LSTM provides the most accurate prediction without cyberattacks. However, the prediction accuracy of the LSTM fluctuates when there are cyber-attacks. Among the four cyberattacks, the random attack triggered the larges variations on the predication results.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207