MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-time Protection Against Microgrid False Data Injection Attacks Using Passive Monitoring

2023· article· en· W4387005196 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Karanfil, El-Nasser S. Youssef, Marthe Kassouf, Mourad Debbabi, Mohsen Ghafouri, Aiman Hanna

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersHydro-Québec
KeywordsMicrogridIEC 61850TestbedFault (geology)Computer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Real-time computingSmart gridDistributed generationEnergy (signal processing)Reliability engineeringComputer securityComputer networkEngineeringControl (management)Electrical engineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microgrids are continuing to play a big role in the smart grids by offering higher reliability and integration of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs). Due to their dependence on accurate and authenticated data, microgrids subjected to False Data Injection (FDI) attacks can have their ability to provide energy negatively impacted. In this paper, a real-time centralized monitoring scheme is proposed to detect and mitigate FDI attacks that falsely portray a line fault. Passive monitoring devices are deployed in multiple regions of the microgrid, and data-driven neural network techniques are used to compute the extent that line measurement inferred from incoming IEC 61850 Sampled Value (SV) frames deviate from expected operation. The deviations are reported to a central security manager, which determines whether or not an FDI attack is underway based on the amount of inconsistency in the reported deviations. The impact of FDI attacks that present the microgrid as being under fault is demonstrated on a microgrid co-simulation testbed. The proposed centralized detection approach is found to be effective at identifying fault FDI attacks in cases where a minority subset of sensors is targeted.

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 score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207