Large Language Model-Based Framework for Explainable Cyberattack Detection in Automatic Generation Control Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing digitization of smart grids has improved operational efficiency but also introduced new cybersecurity vulnerabilities, such as False Data Injection Attacks (FDIAs) targeting Automatic Generation Control (AGC) systems. While machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models have shown promise in detecting such attacks, their opaque decisionmaking limits operator trust and real-world applicability. This paper proposes a hybrid framework that integrates lightweight ML-based attack detection with natural language explanations generated by Large Language Models (LLMs). Classifiers such as LightGBM achieve up to $95.13 \%$ attack detection accuracy with only 0.004 s inference latency. Upon detecting a cyberattack, the system invokes LLMs-including GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, and GPT-4o mini-to generate human-readable explanation of the event. Evaluated on 100 test samples, GPT-4o mini with 20 -shot prompting achieved $93 \%$ accuracy in identifying the attack target, a mean absolute error of 0.075 pu in estimating attack magnitude, and 2.19 seconds mean absolute error (MAE) in estimating attack onset. These results demonstrate that the proposed framework effectively balances real-time detection with interpretable, high-fidelity explanations, addressing a critical need for actionable AI in smart grid cybersecurity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".