MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Linear Deception Attacks on Remote State Estimation with Constrained Alarm Rates: A Low-Dimensional Case

2024· article· en· W4407949322 on OpenAlexafffund
Jun Shang, Hanwen Zhang, Jing Zhou, Tongwen Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDeceptionComputer scienceConstant false alarm rateEstimationState (computer science)ALARMFalse alarmComputer securityAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses linear attacks on remote state estimation within the context of a constrained alarm rate. Smart sensors, which are equipped with local Kalman filters, transmit innovations instead of raw measurements through a wireless communication network. This transmission is vulnerable to malicious data interception and manipulation by attackers. The aim of this research is to identify the optimal attack strategy that degrades the system performance while adhering to stealthiness constraints. A notable innovation of this paper is the direct association of the attack’s stealthiness with the alarm rate, diverging from traditional approaches that rely on the covariance of the innovation or the Kullback–Leibler divergence, which are conventional metrics that have been extensively explored in previous studies. Our findings reveal that the optimal attack strategy exhibits some structural characteristics in systems of low dimensions. The performance of the proposed attack strategy is demonstrated through numerical examples.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207