Language Recovery in Discrete-Event Systems against Sensor Deception Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyber-physical systems are characterized by the intrinsic combination of software and physical components that usually include (wired and wireless) communication devices, sensors, actuators, and control processing units. Some wireless devices communicate over insecure channels, rendering cyber-physical systems at risk of malicious attacks that might lead to catastrophic damage. This paper touches upon the problem of sensor deception attacks in supervisory control of discrete-event systems, where an attacker can insert, delete, or replace sensor readings to mislead the supervisor and induce system damage. We model potential attacks using nondeterministic finite-state transducers and then introduce a new defence strategy that utilizes insertion functions. Insertion functions are a type of monitoring interface that alters the system’s behaviour by adding extra observable events. Finally, we construct a nondeterministic finite-state transducer called a supervisor filter that recovers the original language generated by the plant by handling the altered language. The insertion function and the supervisor filter cooperate to control the system and confuse the intruder without confusing the supervisor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".