Comparison of deep learning algorithms for site detection of false data injection attacks in smart grids

Q2 Energy Energy Informatics Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1186/s42162-024-00381-9
Qassim Nasir, Manar Abu Talib, Muhammad Arbab Arshad, Tracy Ishak, Romaissa Berrim, Basma Alsaid, Youssef Badway, Omnia Abu Waraga
{"title":"Comparison of deep learning algorithms for site detection of false data injection attacks in smart grids","authors":"Qassim Nasir,&nbsp;Manar Abu Talib,&nbsp;Muhammad Arbab Arshad,&nbsp;Tracy Ishak,&nbsp;Romaissa Berrim,&nbsp;Basma Alsaid,&nbsp;Youssef Badway,&nbsp;Omnia Abu Waraga","doi":"10.1186/s42162-024-00381-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>False Data Injection Attacks (FDIA) pose a significant threat to the stability of smart grids. Traditional Bad Data Detection (BDD) algorithms, deployed to remove low-quality data, can easily be bypassed by these attacks which require minimal knowledge about the parameters of the power bus systems. This makes it essential to develop defence approaches that are generic and scalable to all types of power systems. Deep learning algorithms provide state-of-the-art detection for FDIA while requiring no knowledge about system parameters. However, there are very few works in the literature that evaluate these models for FDIA detection at the level of an individual node in the power system. In this paper, we compare several recent deep learning-based model that proven their high performance and accuracy in detecting the exact location of the attack node, which are convolutional neural networks (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), attention-based bidirectional LSTM, and hybrid models. We, then, compare their performance with baseline multi-layer perceptron (MLP)., All the models are evaluated on IEEE-14 and IEEE-118 bus systems in terms of row accuracy (RACC), computational time, and memory space required for training the deep learning model. Each model was further investigated through a manual grid search to determine the optimal architecture of the deep learning model, including the number of layers and neurons in each layer. Based on the results, CNN model exhibited consistently high performance in very short training time. LSTM achieved the second highest accuracy; however, it had required an averagely higher training time. The attention-based LSTM model achieved a high accuracy of 94.53 during hyperparameter tuning, while the CNN model achieved a moderately lower accuracy with only one-fourth of the training time. Finally, the performance of each model was quantified on different variants of the dataset—which varied in their <span>\\({\\text{l}}_{2}\\)</span>-norm. Based on the results, LSTM, CNN obtained the highest accuracy followed by CNN-LSTM and lastly MLP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":538,"journal":{"name":"Energy Informatics","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s42162-024-00381-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42162-024-00381-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Energy","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

False Data Injection Attacks (FDIA) pose a significant threat to the stability of smart grids. Traditional Bad Data Detection (BDD) algorithms, deployed to remove low-quality data, can easily be bypassed by these attacks which require minimal knowledge about the parameters of the power bus systems. This makes it essential to develop defence approaches that are generic and scalable to all types of power systems. Deep learning algorithms provide state-of-the-art detection for FDIA while requiring no knowledge about system parameters. However, there are very few works in the literature that evaluate these models for FDIA detection at the level of an individual node in the power system. In this paper, we compare several recent deep learning-based model that proven their high performance and accuracy in detecting the exact location of the attack node, which are convolutional neural networks (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), attention-based bidirectional LSTM, and hybrid models. We, then, compare their performance with baseline multi-layer perceptron (MLP)., All the models are evaluated on IEEE-14 and IEEE-118 bus systems in terms of row accuracy (RACC), computational time, and memory space required for training the deep learning model. Each model was further investigated through a manual grid search to determine the optimal architecture of the deep learning model, including the number of layers and neurons in each layer. Based on the results, CNN model exhibited consistently high performance in very short training time. LSTM achieved the second highest accuracy; however, it had required an averagely higher training time. The attention-based LSTM model achieved a high accuracy of 94.53 during hyperparameter tuning, while the CNN model achieved a moderately lower accuracy with only one-fourth of the training time. Finally, the performance of each model was quantified on different variants of the dataset—which varied in their \({\text{l}}_{2}\)-norm. Based on the results, LSTM, CNN obtained the highest accuracy followed by CNN-LSTM and lastly MLP.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较用于智能电网虚假数据注入攻击现场检测的深度学习算法
虚假数据注入攻击(FDIA)对智能电网的稳定性构成重大威胁。传统的坏数据检测 (BDD) 算法用于清除低质量数据,但很容易被这些攻击绕过,而这些攻击只需对电力总线系统的参数有最低限度的了解。因此,开发通用且可扩展至所有类型电力系统的防御方法至关重要。深度学习算法可对 FDIA 进行最先进的检测,同时无需了解系统参数。然而,文献中很少有针对电力系统中单个节点的 FDIA 检测对这些模型进行评估的作品。在本文中,我们比较了几个最新的基于深度学习的模型,这些模型在检测攻击节点的准确位置方面具有很高的性能和准确性,它们是卷积神经网络(CNN)、长短期记忆(LSTM)、基于注意力的双向 LSTM 和混合模型。所有模型都在 IEEE-14 和 IEEE-118 总线系统上进行了评估,评估指标包括行精度(RACC)、计算时间以及训练深度学习模型所需的内存空间。每个模型都通过手动网格搜索进行了进一步研究,以确定深度学习模型的最佳架构,包括层数和每层的神经元数。根据结果,CNN 模型在很短的训练时间内表现出了稳定的高性能。LSTM 的准确率位居第二,但平均需要更长的训练时间。基于注意力的 LSTM 模型在超参数调整过程中取得了 94.53 的高准确率,而 CNN 模型仅用四分之一的训练时间就取得了较低的准确率。最后,我们对每个模型在不同变体数据集上的表现进行了量化,这些变体数据集的$${text\{l}}_{2}$-norm各不相同。根据结果,LSTM、CNN 获得了最高的准确率,其次是 CNN-LSTM,最后是 MLP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Informatics
Energy Informatics Computer Science-Computer Networks and Communications
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Realization and research of self-healing technology of power communication equipment based on power safety and controllability Integrated energy trading algorithm for source-grid-load-storage energy system based on distributed machine learning Distributed hybrid energy storage photovoltaic microgrid control based on MPPT algorithm and equilibrium control strategy Research on the impact of enterprise digital transformation based on digital twin technology on renewable energy investment decisions Optimizing power system trading processes using smart contract algorithms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1