Secure State Estimation of Cyber-Physical Systems via Gaussian Bernoulli Mixture Model

Ling Shi; Nachuan Yang; Peihu Duan; Shilei Li; Xingzhou Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Secure State Estimation of Cyber-Physical Systems via Gaussian Bernoulli Mixture Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One optimization over states and attack flags detects sensor attacks without an attack model.

desk verdict A useful joint detection-estimation heuristic with a promising alternating solver, but the paper's claim to have derived it as the optimal Gaussian-Bernoulli estimator is not supported by the equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09956 v2 pith:QQKZPEK2 submitted 2024-11-15 eess.SY cs.SY

Xingzhou Chen , Nachuan Yang , Peihu Duan , Shilei Li , Ling Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93E1190C11

keywords cyber-physicalsystemsattackdetectionresilientstateestimationGaussian-BernoullimixturemodelobservationindicatorsKalmanfilterproximalgradientdescentmixed-integerprogramming

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Most cyber-physical systems run attack detection and state estimation as separate routines, and both degrade when the attack model is unknown. This paper claims that by modeling each observation as either clean Gaussian noise or contaminated by an unknown extra term selected by a Bernoulli indicator, the two tasks collapse into a single dual-variable optimization over states and indicators. The resulting Gaussian-Bernoulli Secure estimator alternates between estimating states from trusted observations and updating trust flags by a threshold on the squared residual, with closed-form Kalman-filter and smoothing solutions for the estimation subproblem and a proximal-gradient iteration for speed. In simulations it reports higher detection success and lower estimation error than chi-square, CUSUM, and resilient baselines under random, constant, and ramp attacks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gaussian-Bernoulli mixture observation model $\bar{v}_t = v_t + p_t\delta_t$, where $p_t$ is a Bernoulli indicator flagging abnormal readings and $\delta_t$ is an unknown uniform disturbance; this turns the problem into a mixed-integer program over states and flags. The dual-variable objective $W$ in equation (7) is what lets one algorithm do detection and estimation: the quadratic terms encode system dynamics and trusted observations, while the binary term $\alpha p_i$ charges a penalty for distrusting a reading. Two sub-results carry the computation: Lemma 1 gives a closed-form Kalman/RTS solution for sequential estimation from partial observations, with zero gains on missing data, and Theorem 1 gives the proximal-gradient update $(I + \eta H)^{-1}(X - \eta\nabla f(X))$, which converges linearly and reuses the previous estimate as a warm start when new observations are admitted. The threshold rule $\hat{p}_i = \mathrm{bool}(\|y_i - C\hat{x}_i\|^2_{R^{-1}} > \alpha)$ closes the loop by updating flags from residuals.

What would settle it

Run the GBS estimator against an adversary that knows the current estimate and injects $\delta_t$ so that the corrupted reading stays inside the $\alpha$-threshold ellipsoid, for example by setting the injected value close to $C\hat{x}_t$ and adding small noise. If the estimator reports no alarm while the state estimate diverges from the true state, the residual-threshold detection rule is falsified; a quantitative version would vary $\alpha$ and report the minimum attack magnitude needed for a given detection rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that attack detection is not a separate problem from state estimation: in a linear Gaussian system whose measurement noise is a Gaussian-Bernoulli mixture, the right object to solve is the joint objective $W$ over the state sequence and binary observation indicators, and its minimizer simultaneously yields resilient estimates and attack flags. The detection rule falls out as a threshold: flag observation $i$ whenever the squared residual $\|y_i - C\hat{x}_i\|^2_{R^{-1}}$ exceeds $\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is set by the assumed Bernoulli rate. For a fixed set of trusted observations, the estimation subproblem is a partial-observation MAP problem with a unique closed-form solution via Kalman filtering and Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoothing with zero gains on discarded data. Because that direct solution is expensive, the paper proves a proximal-gradient iteration converges linearly to the same estimate, and the full algorithm alternates these steps with a one-flag flip test to escape suboptimal cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the assumption that a compromised sensor produces a measurement that deviates enough from the current state estimate to trip a residual threshold, and that the rate of such events is known in advance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An operator gets detection and estimation from one algorithm: observations whose residual exceeds $\alpha$ are dropped automatically, and the state sequence is recomputed only from the trusted set.
The closed-form partial-observation solution inherits Kalman/RTS optimality on the trusted set, with missing or attacked readings handled by zero gains rather than ad hoc filtering.
Because the proximal iteration warm-starts from the previous estimate, adding one trusted observation to a large set requires fewer iterations as the set grows.
The same derivation covers multi-sensor systems by giving each sensor its own indicator, which is how the 20-sensor experiment distinguishes attacked sensors from ordinary outliers.
Detection success rises with attack intensity while estimation error rises only slightly and then levels off, so the estimator stays usable under strong random, constant, and ramp attacks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that the same objective could run in sliding-window online mode: the warm-started proximal iteration is naturally suited to streaming observations, though the convergence proof is stated for a fixed interval.
A testable extension is to treat $\beta$, hence $\alpha$, as unknown and estimate it online from the empirical frequency of flagged observations; the current method assumes this penalty is known a priori.
The residual-threshold rule defines the method's boundary: an adversary who keeps each corrupted measurement close to the predicted state will not be flagged, and the paper does not analyze that case; its own Section 6.2 notes the alternating update can stall at suboptimal indicator configurations and adds a flip check to escape them.
Conceptually the method is a penalized-regression approach with explicit binary flags, in the same family as LASSO-type detectors; comparing $\alpha$ against the sparsity penalty in such detectors would clarify when GBS wins.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The GBS estimator is a real engineering contribution, but the theoretical packaging oversells it. What is genuinely new is the joint MIP formulation in Problem 1 and the alternating algorithm that combines threshold-based indicator updates with warm-started proximal gradient state updates. That combination is not in the cited literature, and the simulation section shows it can beat chi-square, CUSUM, and resilient estimators across random, constant, and ramp attacks. Those experiments are the strongest part of the paper, and they stand even if the theory is weaker than claimed.

There is good material in the state-estimation half. Lemma 1's closed-form solution for smoothing with partial observations via Kalman/RTS is a clean extension, and the iterative proximal gradient method with a fixed preconditioner is a sensible way to avoid recomputing gains. The convergence rate in Theorem 1 is standard but correctly applied. The iteration-count bound in Theorem 2, which ties the number of iterations to the initial estimation error, is a nice touch and plausibly useful for online implementations.

The soft spot is the derivation of the detection rule. Equations (4) and (5) are not correct posterior odds for the stated model. When p_t=0, the likelihood is a normalized Gaussian density; there is no delta_t term. When p_t=1, the likelihood is the convolution of the Gaussian and the uniform distribution, not exp(0), and its value depends on the support length. Nor do the posterior odds collapse into a single penalty alpha unless the normalizing constants and the uniform density cancel, which they do not. Assumption 1 explicitly says delta_t has unknown density, so alpha cannot be computed from beta. Section 7.2 confirms this: alpha_threshold=6 is tuned, not derived. The threshold rule in equations (6) and (19) is therefore a reasonable residual-based heuristic, and the empirical results support that heuristic, but the paper's central claim that detection is 'transformed into optimal estimation' is not established.

A few smaller issues: the GBS convergence result is monotone descent to a fixed point, not global optimality of the MIP, and the appendix theorem numbering does not match the main text. No code or data is provided, which matters for a paper whose main evidence is simulation. Still, the method is coherent and the empirical comparisons are informative. With the framing adjusted to present Problem 1 as a principled heuristic rather than the exact Bayesian solution, this is worth publishing.

I would send this to peer review as a regular submission, with the request that the authors either supply a correct probabilistic derivation or explicitly reframe the contribution as a joint optimization heuristic with tuned alpha. The paper will be useful to researchers working on secure state estimation who want a practical joint detector-estimator; they should read the simulations and treat the theoretical derivation with caution.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript considers secure state estimation and attack detection for linear cyber-physical systems, modeling the measurement noise as a Gaussian term plus a Bernoulli-switched attack term of unknown distribution (Assumption 1). The proposed Gaussian-Bernoulli Secure (GBS) estimator solves Problem 1 (Eq. 7), a mixed-integer program over the state sequence and binary observation indicators, by alternating a threshold-based indicator update (Eq. 19) with state-sequence estimation under the selected reliable observations. For the latter, Lemma 1 gives a closed-form Kalman/RTS smoother solution, and Theorem 1 with Algorithm 1 provides a proximal-gradient iteration with a linear convergence rate; Theorem 2 bounds the iteration count when one observation is added. Algorithm 3 combines these pieces and raises an attack alarm when the number of rejected observations exceeds a tolerance parameter. Simulations compare the GBS estimator with chi-square, CUSUM, and resilient estimators under random, constant, and ramp attacks, and compare the direct and iterative update rules under different observation-addition schedules.

Significance. The paper has a clear practical ambition: a joint detector-estimator formulated as a single optimization problem. The fixed-indicator state-estimation portion is coherent and largely standard: Lemma 1 is a direct Kalman/RTS derivation for partial observations, and Theorem 1 follows from standard proximal-gradient analysis under strong convexity. The numerical comparisons are extensive, and the reported gains in detection and estimation are plausible for the tuned threshold rule actually implemented. However, the paper's foundational claim that the Gaussian-Bernoulli model optimally converts attack detection into state estimation is not substantiated. Equations (4)-(6) do not correctly compute posterior odds under Assumption 1, and the threshold alpha is tuned rather than derived from the model. The significance of the work therefore currently rests on empirical evidence for a tuned innovation-based heuristic rather than on the claimed model-based optimality. If the authors either correct the statistical derivation or explicitly reframe the contribution as an efficient tuned heuristic with good empirical performance, the paper would still be useful to the CPS security community.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The derivation of the threshold rule is not a posterior-odds computation for the model in Assumption 1. For p_t = 0, the likelihood should be the Gaussian density of y_t - C x_t alone, with no factor p(delta^1_t), since delta_t is absent when p_t = 0. For p_t = 1, the likelihood is the convolution of N(0, R) with the distribution of delta_t, not exp(0), and the maximization over delta_t does not remove the dependence on the support of the uniform distribution. The posterior odds also carry the normalization 1/p(y_t) and the Gaussian normalization from R, and these terms do not collapse into a constant alpha proportional to ln((1-beta)/beta). Moreover, Assumption 1 states that delta_t has an unknown density, so no alpha can be computed from the model as written. Equation (6) is therefore an assumed threshold rule, not a derived consequence of the Gaussian-Bernoulli mixture model.
[Section 7.2 and Algorithm 3] The central claim that the GBS estimator detects attacks without attack-model knowledge relies on the parameter alpha. Section 7.2 states that alpha_threshold = 6 and tau_tolerant = 3 are chosen to allow each detector and estimator to achieve optimal performance, and Algorithm 3 inherits these values through the threshold in Eq. (19) and through the alarm condition on line 24. No procedure is given for computing alpha from the Bernoulli parameter beta or for choosing alpha from an attack-free false-alarm specification. Consequently, the experiments demonstrate the behavior of a tuned residual-threshold heuristic; they do not validate the model-based optimality asserted in Contribution (1) and in Section 3.2. The authors should either derive alpha from the stated model and a detection criterion, or explicitly reframe the method as a heuristic whose parameters are tuned.
[Algorithm 2, lines 3-8] The initial strategy uses the opposite inequality from the rest of the paper. Line 3 sets p-hat_i = bool(||y_i - C x-hat_i||^2_{R^{-1}} < alpha), so p-hat_i = 1 denotes a small residual, and lines 5-7 then perform a Kalman measurement update with that observation. Throughout Section 6.2, however, p_i = 1 denotes an abnormal observation that should be discarded: Eq. (19) flags p-hat_i = 1 when the residual norm exceeds alpha, and the reliable set is O = {i | p-hat_i = 0}. If Algorithm 2 is taken literally, the initialization discards the normal observations and assimilates the attacked ones. This should be corrected to use '> alpha', and the implications for the reported simulations should be checked.

minor comments (5)

[Assumption 1, Eq. (3)] The statement that delta_t has a uniform distribution with unknown probability density is internally contradictory; a uniform distribution has a known density up to its support. Please clarify whether the support is known and whether the density is intended to be unknown only in its support parameters.
[Appendix A.2 and A.3] The appendix headings are mismatched with the main text: Appendix A.2 is titled 'Proof of Theorem 2' but proves the convergence result of Theorem 1, while Appendix A.3 proves Theorem 3, which does not appear in the main text (the relevant statement is Theorem 2 in Section 5.2). Renumbering would remove confusion.
[Section 3.1, text after Eq. (1)] The sentence 'we assume the process noise ... is not uncorrelated with measurement noise' appears to be a double negative; presumably the intended meaning is that the process noise is uncorrelated with the measurement noise. Please correct the wording.
[Figure 9 caption] The caption refers to the 'GSB Estimator' in the left and right figures, but the estimator is elsewhere called the GBS estimator; the abbreviation should be made consistent.
[Section 6.3, after Eq. (26)] The convergence argument shows monotone non-increase of W over the finite set of indicator vectors, which implies termination at a fixed point of the local search, but it does not establish convergence to the global optimum of Problem 1. The local flip test in Eq. (23) can stop at a local minimum. The authors should state this limitation explicitly where the word 'optimal' is used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Detection performance is partly a tuned-threshold effect, but the state-estimation derivation is self-contained.

fitted input called prediction [Section 7.2, 'Compared with Other Detectors and Estimators'; detection rule in Eq. (19), Section 6.2]
"We choose αthreshold = 6 and τtolerant = 3 that allows each detector and estimator to achieve optimal performance. ... ˆpi = bool(∥yi − C ˆx∗ i ∥2 R−1 > α)."

The GBS detector's decision is the threshold rule of Eq. (19), where α is the same penalty appearing in Problem 1. In Section 7.2, αthreshold is hand-tuned to 'achieve optimal performance' on the experimental attack scenarios, and then the resulting detection success rate is reported as evidence that GBS detects attacks. The reported detection performance is therefore not an independent prediction of the model: the threshold defining the detector is selected to optimize the same metric being reported, so the success rate is partly a property of the tuned threshold rather than a consequence of the Gaussian-Bernoulli derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central state-estimation derivation is self-contained: Lemma 1 solves the partial-observation LMMSE problem with the Kalman filter and RTS smoother, Problem 4 and Theorem 1 provide a proximal-gradient solution with a convergence proof, and Algorithm 1 is a direct implementation. These steps do not depend on the attack detection threshold or on any load-bearing self-citation; the cited prior work is background and comparison material only. The only circularity concern is in the detection claim: the GBS detector is defined by Eq. (19), a residual threshold with penalty α, and Section 7.2 tunes αthreshold = 6 to achieve optimal performance before reporting detection success. Consequently, the detection results in Fig. 9 are partly an artifact of threshold selection rather than an independent prediction from the model. This does not undermine the estimation derivations, so the overall circularity score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution rests on one free detection threshold alpha, a tolerance parameter tau, and the mixture-model assumption. The state-estimation derivations themselves are parameter-free given A, C, Q, R. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

alpha (observation penalty / detection threshold) = alpha_threshold = 6 in Section 7.2; theoretical alpha proportional to log((1-beta)/beta)
Appears in equations (6), (18), (19) and Algorithm 3. The paper gives no estimation procedure for beta or alpha, and the simulations tune alpha to achieve optimal performance.
tau_tolerant (attack alarm tolerance) = tau = 3 in Section 7.2
Algorithm 3 declares an attack when (N - |O_k|) > tau; the value is chosen manually and affects the reported detection alarm behavior.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The measurement noise obeys the Gaussian-Bernoulli mixture v_t = v_t + p_t * delta_t with p_t Bernoulli, delta_t uniform with unknown density, and the three random variables uncorrelated (Assumption 1).
This is the central model; the paper provides no empirical justification and the uniform delta has unknown support, so likelihood normalizations are ambiguous.
ad hoc to paper Comparing posterior probabilities of p_t=0 and p_t=1 reduces to the threshold rule argmin (1-p)||y-Cx||^2 + alpha p, with alpha proportional to log((1-beta)/beta), as stated in equations (4)-(6).
The derivation omits the uniform density constant and does not integrate delta_t out of the joint posterior; equation (7) is therefore a heuristic surrogate rather than an exact MAP objective.
standard math The pair (A,C) is observable and the process and measurement noises are mutually independent with positive definite covariances.
Used for the uniqueness and closed-form results in Lemma 1 and Theorem 1; standard for Kalman filtering.
standard math The composite objective in Problem 4 is L-smooth and strongly convex with the stated constants Lf, lambda_f, Lg, lambda_g (Proposition 1).
Relies on standard smooth/strong-convexity inequalities; the strong convexity of g follows from Q, P0 > 0.
domain assumption The uniform distribution of delta_t is non-informative over a finite interval, so a fixed scalar alpha can separate normal from attacked observations across attack types and intensities.
The experiments use this to evaluate detection; Section 7 tunes alpha rather than estimating it from data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure State Estimation of Cyber-Physical Systems via Gaussian Bernoulli Mixture Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQKZPEK2

@misc{pith2026241109956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure State Estimation of Cyber-Physical Systems via Gaussian Bernoulli Mixture Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQKZPEK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09956}
}

read the original abstract

The implementation of cyber-physical systems in real-world applications is challenged by safety requirements in the presence of sensor threats. Most cyber-physical systems, especially multi-sensor systems, struggle to detect sensor attacks when the attack model is unknown. In this paper, we tackle this issue by proposing a Gaussian-Bernoulli Secure (GBS) estimator, which transforms the detection problem into an optimal estimation problem concerning the system state and observation indicators. It encompasses two theoretical sub-problems: sequential state estimation with partial observations and estimation updates with disordered new observations. Within the framework of Kalman filter, we derive closed-form solutions for these two problems. However, due to their computational inefficiency, we propose the iterative approach employing proximal gradient descent to update the estimation in less time. Finally, we conduct experiments from three perspectives: computational efficiency, detection performance, and estimation error. Our GBS estimator demonstrates significant improvements over other methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09956 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the MIP problem. The red color rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Estimation update for new observation yk under the previous observation set yO A basic approach is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Recalculation steps for estimation update. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The framework of GBS estimator. GBS estimator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Illustration of three types of attacks in our experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of direct approach and iterative approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Characterization the measurement error by esti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems

Jairo Giraldo, David Urbina, Alvaro Cardenas, Junia Valente, Mustafa Faisal, Justin Ruths, Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Henrik Sandberg, and Richard Candell. A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(4):1–36, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

A model-based design methodology for cyber-physical systems

Jeff C Jensen, Danica H Chang, and Edward A Lee. A model-based design methodology for cyber-physical systems. In IEEE Proceedings of the 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference , pages 1666–1671, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Cybersecurity landscape on remote state estimation: A comprehensive review

Jing Zhou, Jun Shang, and Tongwen Chen. Cybersecurity landscape on remote state estimation: A comprehensive review. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 11(4):851– 865, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Applications of cyber-physical system: a literature review

Hong Chen. Applications of cyber-physical system: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 2(03):1750012, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Smart grids: A cyber–physical systems perspective

Xinghuo Yu and Yusheng Xue. Smart grids: A cyber–physical systems perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(5):1058– 1070, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Advancements in industrial cyber-physical systems: An overview and perspectives

Kunwu Zhang, Yang Shi, Stamatis Karnouskos, Thilo Sauter, Huazhen Fang, and Armando Walter Colombo. Advancements in industrial cyber-physical systems: An overview and perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(1):716–729, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

High-accuracy tracking control for uncertain robot manipulators: a sparse online gaussian process approach

Yunxiao Ren, Weiming Liu, Silong Wang, Guannan Lv, and Guanghui Wen. High-accuracy tracking control for uncertain robot manipulators: a sparse online gaussian process approach. Robotic Intelligence and Automation , 45(2):273–282, 2025. 15

work page 2025
[8]

Cyber-physical attacks and defences in the smart grid: a survey

Haibo He and Jun Yan. Cyber-physical attacks and defences in the smart grid: a survey. IET Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory & Applications , 1(1):13–27, 2016

work page 2016

Show all 36 references

[9]

Cybersecurity for autonomous vehicles: Review of attacks and defense

Kyounggon Kim, Jun Seok Kim, Seonghoon Jeong, Jo-Hee Park, and Huy Kang Kim. Cybersecurity for autonomous vehicles: Review of attacks and defense. Computers & Security, 103:102150, 2021

2021
[10]

Jamming and spoofing of GNSS signals–an underestimated risk?! Proc

Alexander Ruegamer, Dirk Kowalewski, et al. Jamming and spoofing of GNSS signals–an underestimated risk?! Proc. Wisdom Ages Challenges Modern World , 3:17–21, 2015

2015
[11]

The vulnerability of uavs to cyber attacks-an approach to the risk assessment

Kim Hartmann and Christoph Steup. The vulnerability of uavs to cyber attacks-an approach to the risk assessment. In IEEE Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, pages 1–23, 2013

2013
[12]

False data injection attacks in control systems

Yilin Mo and Bruno Sinopoli. False data injection attacks in control systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Secure Control Systems, volume 1, 2010

2010
[13]

Optimal DoS attacks on remote state estimation with continuous action spaces

Yunxiao Ren, Zhisheng Duan, Jiashun Guan, Weiming Liu, and Yicheng Lin. Optimal DoS attacks on remote state estimation with continuous action spaces. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS) , pages 1153–1158. IEEE, 2024

2024
[14]

Optimal linear cyber-attack on remote state estimation

Ziyang Guo, Dawei Shi, Karl Henrik Johansson, and Ling Shi. Optimal linear cyber-attack on remote state estimation. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , 4(1):4– 13, 2016

2016
[15]

Optimal denial-of-service attack scheduling with energy constraint

Heng Zhang, Peng Cheng, Ling Shi, and Jiming Chen. Optimal denial-of-service attack scheduling with energy constraint. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 60(11):3023–3028, 2015

2015
[16]

Detecting integrity attacks on scada systems

Yilin Mo, Rohan Chabukswar, and Bruno Sinopoli. Detecting integrity attacks on scada systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 22(4):1396–1407, 2013

2013
[17]

Optimal deception attacks on remote state estimators equipped with interval anomaly detectors

Jing Zhou, Jun Shang, and Tongwen Chen. Optimal deception attacks on remote state estimators equipped with interval anomaly detectors. Automatica, 148:110723, 2023

2023
[18]

LASSO-based detection and identification of actuator integrity attacks in remote control systems

Nachuan Yang, Zikai Wang, Tianci Yang, Yuzhe Li, and Ling Shi. LASSO-based detection and identification of actuator integrity attacks in remote control systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 32(2):696–704, 2023

2023
[19]

Game-theoretic methods for robustness, security, and resilience of cyberphysical control systems: games-in-games principle for optimal cross-layer resilient control systems

Quanyan Zhu and Tamer Basar. Game-theoretic methods for robustness, security, and resilience of cyberphysical control systems: games-in-games principle for optimal cross-layer resilient control systems. IEEE Control Systems Magazine , 35(1):46–65, 2015

2015
[20]

SINR-based DoS attack on remote state estimation: A game-theoretic approach

Yuzhe Li, Daniel E Quevedo, Subhrakanti Dey, and Ling Shi. SINR-based DoS attack on remote state estimation: A game-theoretic approach. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , 4(3):632–642, 2016

2016
[21]

Synthesis of supervisors robust against sensor deception attacks

Rˆ omulo Meira-G´ oes, St´ ephane Lafortune, and Herv´ e Marchand. Synthesis of supervisors robust against sensor deception attacks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(10):4990–4997, 2021

2021
[22]

Distributed secure filtering against eavesdropping attacks in SINR-based sensor networks

Xingquan Fu, Guanghui Wen, Mengfei Niu, and Wei Xing Zheng. Distributed secure filtering against eavesdropping attacks in SINR-based sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 19:3483–3494, 2024

2024
[23]

Physical authentication of control systems: Designing watermarked control inputs to detect counterfeit sensor outputs

Yilin Mo, Sean Weerakkody, and Bruno Sinopoli. Physical authentication of control systems: Designing watermarked control inputs to detect counterfeit sensor outputs. IEEE Control Systems Magazine , 35(1):93–109, 2015

2015
[24]

Kogiso Kiminao and T. Fujita. Cyber-security enhancement of networked control systems using homomorphic encryption. In IEEE Proceedings of the 54th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 6836–6843, 2015

2015
[25]

Optimal linear encryption against stealthy attacks on remote state estimation

Jun Shang, Maoyin Chen, and Tongwen Chen. Optimal linear encryption against stealthy attacks on remote state estimation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 66(8):3592–3607, 2020

2020
[26]

Single- dimensional encryption against innovation-based stealthy attacks on remote state estimation

Jun Shang, Jing Zhou, and Tongwen Chen. Single- dimensional encryption against innovation-based stealthy attacks on remote state estimation. Automatica, 136:110015, 2022

2022
[27]

Stealthy attacks on sampled-data control and encryption-based countermeasures

Jun Shang, Yuzhe Li, and Tongwen Chen. Stealthy attacks on sampled-data control and encryption-based countermeasures. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 2025

2025
[28]

Tabor: A graphical model-based approach for anomaly detection in industrial control systems

Qin Lin, Sridha Adepu, Sicco Verwer, and Aditya Mathur. Tabor: A graphical model-based approach for anomaly detection in industrial control systems. In Proceedings of the Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 525–536, 2018

2018
[29]

Anomaly detection in cyber physical systems using recurrent neural networks

Jonathan Goh, Sridhar Adepu, Marcus Tan, and Zi Shan Lee. Anomaly detection in cyber physical systems using recurrent neural networks. In IEEE 18th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering , pages 140–145, 2017

2017
[30]

Deep learning aided interval state prediction for improving cyber security in energy internet

Huaizhi Wang, Jiaqi Ruan, Zhengwei Ma, Bin Zhou, Xueqian Fu, and Guangzhong Cao. Deep learning aided interval state prediction for improving cyber security in energy internet. Energy, 174:1292–1304, 2019

2019
[31]

Catch me if you learn: Real-time attack detection and mitigation in learning enabled CPS

Ipsita Koley, Sunandan Adhikary, and Soumyajit Dey. Catch me if you learn: Real-time attack detection and mitigation in learning enabled CPS. In 2021 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS), pages 136–148. IEEE, 2021

2021
[32]

Secure estimation in the presence of integrity attacks

Yilin Mo and Bruno Sinopoli. Secure estimation in the presence of integrity attacks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 60(4):1145–1151, 2014

2014
[33]

Secure estimation based Kalman filter for cyber–physical systems against sensor attacks

Young Hwan Chang, Qie Hu, and Claire J Tomlin. Secure estimation based Kalman filter for cyber–physical systems against sensor attacks. Automatica, 95:399–412, 2018

2018
[34]

Robust Gaussian Kalman filter with outlier detection

Hongwei Wang, Hongbin Li, Jun Fang, and Heping Wang. Robust Gaussian Kalman filter with outlier detection. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 25(8):1236–1240, 2018

2018
[35]

Joint robustness of time-varying networks and its applications to resilient consensus

Guanghui Wen, Yuezu Lv, Wei Xing Zheng, Jialing Zhou, and Junjie Fu. Joint robustness of time-varying networks and its applications to resilient consensus. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68(11):6466–6480, 2023

2023
[36]

Secure distributed dynamic state estimation against sparse integrity attack via distributed convex optimization

Zishuo Li and Yilin Mo. Secure distributed dynamic state estimation against sparse integrity attack via distributed convex optimization. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69(9):6089–6104, 2024. 16

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems

Jairo Giraldo, David Urbina, Alvaro Cardenas, Junia Valente, Mustafa Faisal, Justin Ruths, Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Henrik Sandberg, and Richard Candell. A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(4):1–36, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

A model-based design methodology for cyber-physical systems

Jeff C Jensen, Danica H Chang, and Edward A Lee. A model-based design methodology for cyber-physical systems. In IEEE Proceedings of the 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference , pages 1666–1671, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Cybersecurity landscape on remote state estimation: A comprehensive review

Jing Zhou, Jun Shang, and Tongwen Chen. Cybersecurity landscape on remote state estimation: A comprehensive review. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 11(4):851– 865, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Applications of cyber-physical system: a literature review

Hong Chen. Applications of cyber-physical system: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 2(03):1750012, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Smart grids: A cyber–physical systems perspective

Xinghuo Yu and Yusheng Xue. Smart grids: A cyber–physical systems perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(5):1058– 1070, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Advancements in industrial cyber-physical systems: An overview and perspectives

Kunwu Zhang, Yang Shi, Stamatis Karnouskos, Thilo Sauter, Huazhen Fang, and Armando Walter Colombo. Advancements in industrial cyber-physical systems: An overview and perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(1):716–729, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

High-accuracy tracking control for uncertain robot manipulators: a sparse online gaussian process approach

Yunxiao Ren, Weiming Liu, Silong Wang, Guannan Lv, and Guanghui Wen. High-accuracy tracking control for uncertain robot manipulators: a sparse online gaussian process approach. Robotic Intelligence and Automation , 45(2):273–282, 2025. 15

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Cyber-physical attacks and defences in the smart grid: a survey

Haibo He and Jun Yan. Cyber-physical attacks and defences in the smart grid: a survey. IET Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory & Applications , 1(1):13–27, 2016

work page 2016