MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Cyber Resilience: Artificial Intelligence based Novel Threat Detection and Incident Response Plan for PowerPlus

2025· article· W7117732470 on OpenAlexaff
Bhavya Jain, Debjyoti Mukherjee, Sarat Chandra Routhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical infrastructureConvolutional neural networkResilience (materials science)Feature (linguistics)Incident responseArtificial neural networkPlan (archaeology)Feature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the several advantages brought about by the modernization of critical infrastructure, it has also given rise to cybersecurity risks as CI has shifted from an isolated environment to Internet-connected ecosystems, exposing critical infrastructure to cyber threats. Cybersecurity threats pose significant risks to critical infrastructure, including power systems. Therefore, it is imperative to tackle the evolving cyber threats targeting critical infrastructure and develop a strategic risk assessment and incident response framework to neutralize the emerging cyber threats. This paper presents a strategic approach to enhancing PowerPlus cyber resilience through a novel risk assessment and incident response framework. Unlike traditional models, the proposed method monitors the network traffic of the IT/OT environment. It transforms network traffic dumps into grayscale image formats, making it a research problem in computer vision. The convolutional neural network (CNN) model extracts features with minimal dependence on manual feature engineering. The extracted feature maps of different image dimensions are used to train a machine learning classifier. This study performs experiments using several pre-trained CNN models, including VGG16/19, ResNet101V2, and InceptionV3, as feature extractors, and SVM as a classifier. The results show that VGG19+SVM achieves the best performance, with 91.35% accuracy, 91% precision, and 9 recall. The proposed methodology outclassed similar kinds of research.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207