MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantum Communication Protocols to Improve the Security and Reliability of Next-Generation Smart Energy Systems

2025· article· W7143530957 on OpenAlexaff
Sandip Gurudas Lanjewar, Aditya Parate, Gousia Ahmed, Hrushikesh Madhukar Panchabudhe, Ravindra Ramesh Rasekar, Praveen Kumar Dhankar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Energy (signal processing)Communications protocolEnergy consumptionEfficient energy useKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart energy systems are expediting the development of IoT-based devices, distributed energy resources and smart grid operations. This has eased more efficiency and environmental benefits. The digital systems lack privacy, accuracy, and reliability of data, thus making it susceptible to hacking and other evil acts. Even though it is resistant to most of the attacks, traditional cryptography may not work anymore as computers accelerate and quantum computers are put into practice. One can also utilize quantum communication technologies which are based on quantum physics which is more secure. BB84 and E91 algorithm of quantum key distribution in next-generation smart energy systems are the ones used in the current paper. The suggested solutions contribute to the improved security and stability of the operation as they bring the laws of quantum entanglement and superposition in line with the needs of the energy sector. The paper also outlines the major ways through which smart grids can be hacked like manipulating data, using false information and denying-ofservice and how they can be minimized by employing quantumenhanced communication. The success rate and level of data integrity of 98.7 % and 97.6 respectively are better than the classical cryptography and blockchain-only systems by 7.3 and 5.3 % respectively, as indicated by simulation analysis. The hybrid framework demonstrates the resilience against the false data injection and denial-of-service attacks up to 17 %.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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