MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Privacy-preserving, Lightweight, and Decentralized Load Forecasting in Smart Grid AMI Networks

2024· article· en· W4402156730 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed I. Ibrahem, Hussien AbdelRaouf, Ahmad Alsharif, Mostafa M. Fouda, Zubair Md. Fadlullah, Ahmed Aleroud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridComputer scienceGridComputer networkDistributed computingComputer securityEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Load forecasting (LF) in smart grids is beneficial not only in mitigating equipment failures and power outages but also in facilitating effective power dispatching and infrastructure planning. To predict future loads accurately, the consumers' fine-grained energy consumption readings are fed into machine-learning (ML) models. However, revealing these readings enables adversaries to deduce confidential information about consumers, including details about their lifestyle, and hence their privacy is violated. To address this privacy issue, the existing works only focus on using federated learning (FL)-based approaches to train and obtain an accurate global LF model. Nevertheless, addressing the privacy violation problem during the LF process (in the deployment phase) after obtaining the global model for AMI networks has not been well investigated yet. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel, efficient, and decentralized approach that enhances the precision of LF while safeguarding the privacy of consumers. The proposed scheme incorporates inner product functional encryption (IPFE) to allow smart meters (SMs) to encrypt their readings with no need for a trusted key distribution center (KDC) while allowing LF without divulging or acquiring knowledge of the consumers' readings to protect their privacy. In addition, a hybrid deep learning approach is developed to construct an LF model that can yield precise forecasts. To show the feasibility of the proposed scheme, the performance of our scheme was assessed on a real energy consumption readings dataset, and the results demonstrate proficiency in LF while providing robustness and privacy preservation with reasonable communication efficiency.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207