MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413893978 · doi:10.1145/3759919

A Resilient Control Strategy for Train-to-Train Communications under Jamming Attacks

2025· article· en· W4413893978 on OpenAlexafffund
Amin Fakhereldine, Mohammad Zulkernine, Jessica Alecci, Will Hickie, Dan Murdock

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceJammingComputer networkComputer securityControl (management)Distributed computingTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) systems rely on wireless communications to enhance the efficiency of railway operations. Classical CBTC systems incorporate bidirectional train-to-wayside (T2W) communications through which trains send their status information to wayside units. T2T-CBTC systems represent a burgeoning direction in the future of CBTC. They adopt train-to-train (T2T) communications for adjacent trains to share status information. T2T communications simplify the architecture of traditional CBTC networks and reduce transmission delays. Wireless communications can introduce cybersecurity threats to inter-train communications. This work proposes two resilient control strategies for T2T-CBTC systems to mitigate the effects of jamming. Both strategies are based on multi-agent deep reinforcement learning and aim to control trains’ operations under jamming attacks, allowing them to continue operating safely instead of applying emergency braking. One strategy is based on the Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MADDPG) algorithm, and the other is based on the Multi-Agent Twin Delayed Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MATD3) algorithm. The strategies are implemented and compared with an existing strategy based on MADDPG. The experimental results indicate that the proposed MADDPG-based strategy shortens the convergence time by 32% to 42%, while the MATD3-based strategy achieves a reduction of 40% to 48%, compared to the baseline.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive SystemsSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207