MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resilience Assessment of Multi-Layered Cyber-Physical Systems

2024· article· en· W4401612498 on OpenAlexaff
Romain Dagnas, Michel Barbeau, Joaquín García-Alfaro, Reda Yaich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Cyber-physical systemComputer scienceMaterials scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to technological advancements, critical infrastructures integrate many smart technologies and become highly connected to the cyber world. This is especially true for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs), which combine hardware and software components. Despite the advantages of smart infrastructures, e.g., sustainable energy usage, security, safety enhancement, and predictive algorithms using machine learning, they remain vulnerable to cyber threats and adversarial events such as cyber-attacks. This work focuses on the cyber resilience of CPSs. We propose a methodology leveraging knowledge graph modeling to increase the remediation potential of CPSs and to avoid critical failures that can occur due to cascading effects in complex architectures. We propose an approach based on multi-layered modeling applied to complex systems to achieve this objective. Indeed, a complex system can be considered an overlay of several layers. We use knowledge graphs to model a Secure Water Treatment System (SWaT) test bed subsystem. We conduct a resilience assessment analysis of several designs with a quantitative metric. This resilience analysis, applied to each layer of our models, is also used to highlight critical points, e.g., the key functions or components that are significant for completing a mission.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207