Adversarial Attacks on Deep Learning-Based False Data Injection Detection in Differential Relays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of Deep Learning-based Schemes (DLSs) for detecting False Data Injection Attacks (FDIAs) in smart grids has attracted significant attention. This paper demonstrates that adversarial attacks—carefully crafted FDIAs—can evade existing DLSs used for FDIA detection in Line Current Differential Relays (LCDRs). We propose a novel adversarial attack framework, utilizing the Fast Gradient Sign Method, which exploits DLS vulnerabilities by introducing small perturbations to LCDR remote measurements, leading to misclassification of the FDIA as a legitimate fault while also triggering the LCDR to trip. We evaluate the robustness of multiple deep learning models—including multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, long short-term memory networks, and residual networks—under adversarial conditions. Our experimental results demonstrate that while these models perform well, they exhibit high degrees of vulnerability to adversarial attacks. For some models, the adversarial attack success rate exceeds 99.7%. To address this threat, we introduce adversarial training as a proactive defense mechanism, significantly enhancing the models’ ability to withstand adversarial FDIAs without compromising fault detection accuracy. Our results highlight the significant threat posed by adversarial attacks to DLS-based FDIA detection, underscore the necessity for robust cybersecurity measures in smart grids, and demonstrate the effectiveness of adversarial training in enhancing model robustness against adversarial FDIAs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".