Critical Node Identification for Cyber–Physical Power Distribution Systems Based on Complex Network Theory: A Real Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s world, power distribution systems and information and communication technology (ICT) systems are increasingly interconnected, forming cyber–physical power systems (CPPSs) at the core of smart grids. Ensuring the resilience of these systems is essential for maintaining reliable performance under disasters, failures, or cyber-attacks. Identifying critical nodes within these interdependent networks is key to preserving system robustness. This paper applies complex network (CN) theory—specifically degree centrality (DC), closeness centrality (CC), and betweenness centrality (BC)—to a real-world distribution grid integrated with an ICT layer in northeastern Italy. Simulations are conducted across three scenarios: a directed power network, an undirected power network, and an undirected ICT network. Each centrality metric generates a ranking of nodes which is validated using node removal performance (NRP) analysis. In the directed power network, in-closeness centrality and out-degree centrality are the most effective in identifying critical nodes, with correlations of 84% and 74% with NRP, respectively. DC and BC perform best in the undirected power network, with correlation values of 67% and 53%, respectively. In the ICT network, BC achieves the highest correlation (64%), followed by CC at 55%. These findings demonstrate the potential of centrality-based methods for identifying critical nodes and support strategies for enhancing CPPS resilience and fault recovery by distribution system operators.
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".