Federated Learning for Anomaly Detection in Energy Consumption Data: Assessing the Vulnerability to Adversarial Attacks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anomaly detection is crucial in the energy sector to identify irregular patterns indicating equipment failures, energy theft, or other issues. Machine learning techniques for anomaly detection have achieved great success, but are typically centralized, involving sharing local data with a central server which raises privacy and security concerns. Federated Learning (FL) has been gaining popularity as it enables distributed learning without sharing local data. However, FL depends on neural networks, which are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that manipulate data, leading models to make erroneous predictions. While adversarial attacks have been explored in the image domain, they remain largely unexplored in time series problems, especially in the energy domain. Moreover, the effect of adversarial attacks in the FL setting is also mostly unknown. This paper assesses the vulnerability of FL-based anomaly detection in energy data to adversarial attacks. Specifically, two state-of-the-art models, Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) and Transformers, are used to detect anomalies in an FL setting, and two white-box attack methods, Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) and Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), are employed to perturb the data. The results show that FL is more sensitive to PGD attacks than to FGSM attacks, attributed to PGD’s iterative nature, resulting in an accuracy drop of over 10% even with naive, weaker attacks. Moreover, FL is more affected by these attacks than centralized learning, highlighting the need for defense mechanisms in FL.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it