Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Privacy-Preserving Power Flow Analysis via Secure Multi-Party Computation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A fully privacy-preserving power flow analysis can be built on Newton's method over secret-shared meter data, with formal security inherited from the underlying SMPC protocols.

desk verdict Solid first full SMPC power-flow solver, but the fixed-point correctness gap and a probable typo in Eq. (8) need fixing before the correctness claim is airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14557 v1 pith:Q4IW2XJK submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CR cs.SYeess.SY

Jonas von der Heyden , Nils Schlüter , Philipp Binfet , Martin Asman , Markus Zdrallek , Tibor Jager , Moritz Schulze Darup This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.SYeess.SY
keywords securemulti-partycomputationpowerflowanalysisNewton-Raphsonmethodsmartgridprivacysecretsharinguniversalcomposabilityfixed-pointarithmeticGMRES
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

The paper sets out to show that power flow analysis, the standard grid calculation that maps prosumer power injections to bus voltages, can be performed without ever revealing the underlying smart-meter data, by running Newton's method entirely inside secure multi-party computation (SMPC). It presents Algorithm 3 (ΠPFA), a protocol that evaluates the residual, Jacobian, linear solves, and a line search on secret-shared values, and proves in the universal composability framework that it realizes the ideal power-flow functionality with the security of whichever SMPC protocol is plugged in underneath. If the claim holds, grid operators and market platforms could run voltage-violation checks and congestion forecasts on cryptographically hidden readings without a trusted third party. The benchmarks are offered as evidence of practicality: the online phase finishes in under 30 seconds for a 13-prosumer rural grid at 1 ms round-trip time, while larger grids and higher latency quickly push runtimes past real-time limits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the arithmetic black box (ABB) of secret sharing: a secret-shared number $[x]$ is encoded in fixed point as $z = \lfloor 2^h x \rceil \bmod p$, and the ABB provides addition, multiplication, and reveal operations that are themselves UC-secure. The paper builds Algorithm 3 entirely from ABB operations, choosing a Cartesian power-flow formulation so the Jacobian contains only additions and multiplications rather than trigonometric functions, exploiting public grid topology to restrict multiplications to non-zero entries, and batching communication rounds to reduce interaction. A direct LU solver and an indirect preconditioned GMRES solver are adapted to shares, and a line search based on finite differences of the residual using the identity $\Delta\eta_j = \Delta\eta_{j-1}\,\eta_{j-1}\,\xi_j / (\eta_j\,\xi_{j-1} - \xi_j)$ selects the Newton step size without extra Jacobian evaluations. Security is inherited: every ABB operation is UC-secure, so by the composition theorem the whole protocol realizes the power-flow functionality with the underlying protocol's security type.

What would settle it

Take the 18-bus or 44-bus benchmark grid at its worst-case loading, solve the same power flow in plaintext double precision and through the secure protocol with the same initial guess, and compare the resulting voltage vectors to a tight tolerance. If the secure solution deviates beyond the fixed-point precision, or if convergence behavior differs between the two, the correctness of the fixed-point Newton implementation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Algorithm 3, the protocol ΠPFA, is a fully privacy-preserving realization of power flow analysis. Prosumers secret-share their active and reactive power; all Newton iterations, including residual evaluation, Jacobian construction, solution of the linear system via LU decomposition or GMRES, and the line search that chooses the step size, are computed on shares so that no party sees another's input. Theorem 2 states that ΠPFA realizes the ideal functionality FPFA with perfect, statistical, or computational security against semi-honest or malicious adversaries with honest or dishonest majority, depending on the SMPC protocol selected from Table II; the proof follows from the UC composition theorem because every operation in Algorithm 3 is drawn from the UC-secure arithmetic black box. The authors interpret the benchmark runtimes as showing that SMPC-based privacy-preserving PFA can be practical for certain smart-grid applications, particularly preventive applications with lead times of fifteen minutes to one day.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the fixed-point arithmetic inside the secure computation being accurate enough for Newton's method to converge to the correct voltages; if rounding or overflow corrupts a Newton step, the output is wrong regardless of cryptographic strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grid operators and flexibility-market platforms can run power flow checks on hidden prosumer data, so congestion management and voltage-violation detection no longer require raw smart-meter readings.
  • Because the protocol is UC-secure, it can be composed with other secure functionalities, allowing privately computed voltages to feed into state estimation, optimal power flow, demand response, or market clearing without opening the inputs.
  • The same protocol covers all major threat models: perfect security with an honest majority and semi-honest adversary, computational security with a dishonest majority, and malicious-security variants, with the runtimes in Table III delimiting the cost of each guarantee.
  • The benchmarks imply the method suits preventive applications with lead times from fifteen minutes to a day: at 1 ms round-trip time a 13-prosumer rural grid completes the online phase in under 30 seconds, while the full computation including preprocessing takes a few minutes.
  • The expensive preprocessing phase can be outsourced to a dealer or to two non-colluding dealers that hold only shares, so prosumer hardware only needs to handle the online phase, which is dominated by communication rather than CPU time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical comparison of ΠPFA's outputs against a plaintext double-precision power flow solve is not reported; such a comparison would be the decisive test of whether the 64-bit, 32-fractional-bit fixed-point encoding and dynamic rescaling preserve Newton's accuracy, a premise the benchmarks do not verify.
  • The privacy guarantee is about the computation itself, not about the sensitivity of the output function: since the protocol's output is the full voltage vector, any composed application must treat that vector as sensitive, because voltage profiles can still be correlated with load patterns.
  • The runtime results were collected on a shared high-performance server; extrapolating to real smart-meter hardware is an open question, though the paper's observation that communication dominates CPU time at low round-trip times suggests the online phase may transfer to weaker hardware.
  • The authors' closing suggestion that holomorphic embedding load flow might be a better fit for SMPC is a natural next experiment: implementing that alternative alongside Newton's method would show whether its guaranteed convergence and fixed iteration span translate into lower communication complexity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a privacy-preserving power flow analysis (PFA) built on secure multi-party computation. It reformulates Newton's method in Cartesian coordinates, implements the residual and Jacobian using secret-shared arithmetic, solves the linear systems with a direct LU solver or GMRES, adds a line-search heuristic, and evaluates runtime for two low-voltage benchmark grids under several SMPC protocols and threat models. The central claims are that Algorithm 3 (ΠPFA) is a UC-secure realization of an ideal power-flow functionality FPFA, and that the implementation is practical for small smart-grid settings, with online runtimes below 30 seconds for a 13-prosumer rural grid at 1 ms RTT. The paper also makes its code available on GitHub.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a valuable step toward privacy-preserving PFA without a trusted third party and without leaking prosumer data, directly relevant to smart-meter privacy. The paper has notable strengths: it builds on well-established UC-secure SMPC protocols rather than inventing new cryptography, it ships reproducible code, it reports benchmarks across multiple threat models, and it explicitly discusses the importance of batching communication rounds. However, the numerical correctness of the fixed-point Newton solver is load-bearing and is not established in the manuscript. In addition, several places in the pseudocode appear algebraically inconsistent with the derivations in the text. These issues are fixable, but they currently prevent the paper from supporting its main functionality claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (8), Algorithm 2 line 8] The displayed formula for Δη_j does not follow from the finite-difference approximations given immediately above it. Using the paper's own definitions, dg(η_j)/dη ≈ ξ_j/η_j and d²g(η_j)/dη² ≈ (ξ_j/η_j − ξ_{j−1}/η_{j−1})/(η_j − η_{j−1}); solving dg/dη + (d²g/dη²)Δη_j = 0 gives Δη_j = Δη_{j−1} η_{j−1} ξ_j / (η_j ξ_{j−1} − η_{j−1} ξ_j). The denominator in Eq. (8) is printed without the factor η_{j−1} multiplying ξ_j, so Algorithm 2 line 8, which implements Eq. (8), may produce incorrect step sizes. Please correct the formula or the derivation.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (5) (with Eq. (10))] The Jacobian as typeset has J_{12} = −H_2 + H_4. Differentiating the computed residual in Eq. (10), F_i = v_R,i i_R,i + v_I,i i_I,i, with respect to v_I gives J_{12} = −diag(v_R)B + diag(Bv_R + Gv_I) + diag(v_I)G = H_2 + H_4, not −H_2 + H_4. Unless the sign in Eq. (5) is a typographical error, Algorithm 3 solves a Newton system that is inconsistent with the residual definition. The same sign issue appears to affect the first row of Eq. (4). Please correct the formulas and verify that the implementation matches the corrected Jacobian.
  3. [Section IV-B, Algorithm 1] The forward/backward substitution as written solves L Δx̃ = F and U Δx = Δx̃, hence J Δx = F. The Newton system is J Δx = −F, so the returned step has the wrong sign unless the caller passes −F. Algorithm 3 line 3 invokes Algorithm 1 with the F computed in line 2, so the LU-based Algorithm 3 as written takes a step in the wrong direction. Please add the missing minus sign in line 10 or clearly document that [F] is taken to mean −F.
  4. [Section VI.B and Theorem 2] The paper provides no numerical accuracy validation for the fixed-point implementation. Section VI.B states that the fixed-point precision is limited to 64 bits with h=32 fractional bits and that 'usually higher precision would be necessary for the fault-free execution of our algorithms,' relying instead on dynamic rescaling. Yet the benchmarks report only runtimes, not residuals, per-bus voltage errors, or a comparison against a plaintext power-flow solve. Since Theorem 2 claims that ΠPFA realizes FPFA, correctness of the numerical computation is load-bearing. Please add an accuracy evaluation (e.g., maximal voltage error and final residual on the two test grids, ideally over the full benchmark set) and, if necessary, parameterize the ideal functionality FPFA by the numerical precision actually realized.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Algorithm 1] The algorithm header lists only [J(x)] as input and [L], [U] as outputs, but lines 9–14 use [F] and produce [Δx]; please make the full interface explicit, including which vector is passed as [F].
  2. [Section III-C] The notation F(η) is used without definition; it should be made explicit that F(η) means F(x + η Δx) and F(0) means F(x), since F is a function of the state vector, not of the scalar η.
  3. [Section VI.D] The claim that RAM usage 'includes system overhead, which is likely going to be much lower' in smart-meter operating systems is speculative; if the authors wish to support deployability on resource-constrained hardware, they should report protocol memory consumption separately from system overhead.
  4. [Nomenclature and Section VI.B] The symbol h is described in the nomenclature as the 'exponent of the scaling factor' but is used in Section VI.B as the number of fractional bits; please align the two usages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the security claim inherits from external UC-secure protocol proofs, the benchmarks are measured, and the fixed-point accuracy gap is a correctness concern rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The central security statement (Theorem 2) is justified by composition of the UC-secure arithmetic black box (FABB) from published protocol papers (e.g., BGW, MASCOT, SPDZ2k), whose security proofs are external to this work, and by the standard UC composition theorem [51, Thm. 4.20]. No parameter is fitted to a target result and then renamed as a prediction: the line search parameters (η0 = 1, η1 = 0.99) and the preconditioner P = J(x0)^{-1} are reported as experimentally chosen heuristics, not fitted to the benchmark voltages or runtimes. The fixed-point precision (64 bits, h = 32) is an implementation choice whose accuracy is not validated against a plaintext power flow solve; this is a real correctness gap, but it is not circularity because the paper does not define the claimed functionality in terms of the fixed-point encoding. Similarly, the line-search update in Eq. (8) may be algebraically questionable, but it is a heuristic derived from finite-difference approximations, not a claim that is equivalent to its own inputs by construction. There are no self-citations used as load-bearing support. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol assumes standard SMPC background, public grid topology, unverified fixed-point accuracy, and the non-revelation of the output. None of the assumptions are fitted to the benchmark data; they are engineering choices. The most fragile is the fixed-point accuracy assumption, which the paper does not validate numerically.

free parameters (6)
  • fixed-point precision h = 32 fractional bits (64-bit modulus)
    Section VI-B sets h=32 to avoid overflow while keeping communication low; the paper states higher precision would usually be needed and dynamic rescaling is used instead.
  • statistical security parameter λ1 = 40
    Section VI-B: standard value; not fitted to data.
  • computational security parameter λ2 = 128
    Section VI-B: standard value; not fitted to data.
  • initial step sizes η0, η1 = 1, 0.99
    Section VI-A: set to 1 and 0.99; heuristics for the line search.
  • line search scaling factor ϵ = not specified (small positive)
    Section IV-C: introduced to avoid numerical issues in fixed-point encoding; no value or tuning procedure given.
  • maximum Newton iterations ℓ and line search iterations ℓ_ls = not specified
    Algorithm 3 uses a bound ℓ to prevent timing leakage; the value affects runtime but is not given in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The power flow equation (1) with the Cartesian formulation (4)-(5) correctly represents the stationary AC power flow for PQ buses.
    This is standard power system modeling from [41], [52]; the paper asserts it without proof.
  • domain assumption Newton's method applied to F(x)=0 converges to the operable solution from the public initial guess x0 and with the line search steps from Algorithm 2.
    No convergence analysis is given for the specific grids; Section VI-A reports that the line search reduced iterations by 20-30%.
  • domain assumption G and B are assumed public and non-confidential, enabling the 4N-4 multiplication cost.
    Section IV-A: 'G and B do not contain confidential information', but a low-voltage grid's topology may itself be sensitive.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed-point arithmetic with 64-bit mod p and h=32 fractional bits, plus dynamic rescaling, preserves sufficient accuracy for the Newton iterates.
    Section VI-B sets these parameters; the paper provides no accuracy comparison with plaintext PFA, so this is an unverified ad hoc assumption.
  • domain assumption The referenced SMPC protocols provide UC-security for all operations used, including fixed-point truncation.
    Theorem 2 inherits security from the ABB; the paper does not prove that the fixed-point truncation protocols are UC-secure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Privacy-Preserving Power Flow Analysis via Secure Multi-Party Computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4IW2XJK

@misc{pith2026241114557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Privacy-Preserving Power Flow Analysis via Secure Multi-Party Computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4IW2XJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14557}
}
read the original abstract

Smart grids feature a bidirectional flow of electricity and data, enhancing flexibility, efficiency, and reliability in increasingly volatile energy grids. However, data from smart meters can reveal sensitive private information. Consequently, the adoption of smart meters is often restricted via legal means and hampered by limited user acceptance. Since metering data is beneficial for fault-free grid operation, power management, and resource allocation, applying privacy-preserving techniques to smart metering data is an important research problem. This work addresses this by using secure multi-party computation (SMPC), allowing multiple parties to jointly evaluate functions of their private inputs without revealing the latter. Concretely, we show how to perform power flow analysis on cryptographically hidden prosumer data. More precisely, we present a tailored solution to the power flow problem building on an SMPC implementation of Newtons method. We analyze the security of our approach in the universal composability framework and provide benchmarks for various grid types, threat models, and solvers. Our results indicate that secure multi-party computation can be able to alleviate privacy issues in smart grids in certain applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Privacy preserving computation via secret sharing in a smart grid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Semi-urban network topology with 44 nodes, of which 39 represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The continuation power flow: A tool for steady state voltage stability analysis,

    V . Ajjarapu and C. Christy, “The continuation power flow: A tool for steady state voltage stability analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 416–423, 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Smart meter data privacy: A survey,

    M. R. Asghar, G. D ´an, D. Miorandi, and I. Chlamtac, “Smart meter data privacy: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2820–2835, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Private Memoirs of a Smart Meter,

    A. Molina-Markham, P. J. Shenoy, K. Fu, E. Cecchet, and D. E. Irwin, “Private Memoirs of a Smart Meter,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Embedded Sensing Systems for Energy-Efficiency in Buildings. ACM, 2010, pp. 61–66

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Multimedia content identification through smart meter power usage profiles,

    U. Greveler, P. Gl ¨osek¨otterz, B. Justus, and D. Loehr, “Multimedia content identification through smart meter power usage profiles,” inProc. of the Intl. Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering, 2012, p. 1

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Dynamic energy-consumption indi- cators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design,

    G. Wood and M. Newborough, “Dynamic energy-consumption indi- cators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 821–841, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Security and privacy challenges in the smart grid,

    P. McDaniel and S. McLaughlin, “Security and privacy challenges in the smart grid,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 75–77, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    SOK: Privacy tech- nologies for smart grids – A survey of options,

    M. Jawurek, F. Kerschbaum, and G. Danezis, “SOK: Privacy tech- nologies for smart grids – A survey of options,” Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK, vol. 1, pp. 1–16, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Essential regulatory requirements and recommendations for data handling, data safety, and consumer protection,

    European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, “Essential regulatory requirements and recommendations for data handling, data safety, and consumer protection,” 2015, https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/essential-regulatory- requirements-and-recommendations-data-handling-data-safety-and- consumer en

    work page 2015

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Nistir 7628 rev. 1: Guidelines for smart grid cybersecurity,

    NIST, “Nistir 7628 rev. 1: Guidelines for smart grid cybersecurity,” 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Zhu, Optimization of Power System Operation

    J. Zhu, Optimization of Power System Operation. John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Opti- mal power flow: An introduction to predictive, distributed and stochastic control challenges,

    T. Faulwasser, A. Engelmann, T. M ¨uhlpfordt, and V . Hagenmeyer, “Opti- mal power flow: An introduction to predictive, distributed and stochastic control challenges,” at-Automatisierungstechnik, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 573– 589, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Smart Grid Privacy via Anonymiza- tion of Smart Metering Data,

    C. Efthymiou and G. Kalogridis, “Smart Grid Privacy via Anonymiza- tion of Smart Metering Data,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Smart Grid Communications. IEEE, 2010, pp. 238– 243

    2010

  5. [13]

    I Have a DREAM!(DiffeRentially privatE smArt Metering),

    G. ´Acs and C. Castelluccia, “I Have a DREAM!(DiffeRentially privatE smArt Metering),” in International Workshop on Information Hiding. Springer, 2011, pp. 118–132

    2011

  6. [14]

    Differentially private state estimation in distribution networks with smart meters,

    H. Sandberg, G. D ´an, and R. Thobaben, “Differentially private state estimation in distribution networks with smart meters,” in Proceedings of the 54th conference on decision and control. IEEE, 2015, pp. 4492– 4498

    2015

  7. [15]

    Differential privacy for power grid obfuscation,

    F. Fioretto, T. W. K. Mak, and P. V . Hentenryck, “Differential privacy for power grid obfuscation,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1356–1366, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Preserving privacy of smart meter data in a smart grid environment,

    M. B. Gough, S. F. Santos, T. AlSkaif, M. S. Javadi, R. Castro, and J. P. Catal ˜ao, “Preserving privacy of smart meter data in a smart grid environment,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 707–718, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Privacy-Preserving Probabilistic Voltage Forecasting in Local Energy Communities,

    J. Toubeau, F. Teng, T. Morstyn, L. V . Krannichfeldt, and Y . Wang, “Privacy-Preserving Probabilistic Voltage Forecasting in Local Energy Communities,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 798–809, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    DPWGAN: High-Quality Load Profiles Synthesis with Differential Privacy Guarantees,

    J. Huang, Q. Huang, G. Mou, and C. Wu, “DPWGAN: High-Quality Load Profiles Synthesis with Differential Privacy Guarantees,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Privacy-Friendly Energy-Metering via Homomorphic Encryption,

    F. D. Garcia and B. Jacobs, “Privacy-Friendly Energy-Metering via Homomorphic Encryption,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Security and Trust Management, 2010, pp. 226–238

    2010

  12. [20]

    Secure Information Aggregation for Smart Grids using Homomorphic Encryption,

    F. Li, B. Luo, and P. Liu, “Secure Information Aggregation for Smart Grids using Homomorphic Encryption,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Smart Grid Communications. IEEE, 2010, pp. 327–332

    2010

  13. [21]

    Efficient and Privacy-Preserving Metering Protocols for Smart Grid Systems,

    H. J. Jo, I. Kim, and D. H. Lee, “Efficient and Privacy-Preserving Metering Protocols for Smart Grid Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1732–1742, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Privacy-preserving distributed eco- nomic dispatch of microgrids: A dynamic quantization-based consensus scheme with homomorphic encryption,

    W. Chen, L. Liu, and G.-P. Liu, “Privacy-preserving distributed eco- nomic dispatch of microgrids: A dynamic quantization-based consensus scheme with homomorphic encryption,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 701–713, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Privacy-Preserving Distributed Optimal Power Flow with Partially Homomorphic Encryption,

    T. Wu, C. Zhao, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Privacy-Preserving Distributed Optimal Power Flow with Partially Homomorphic Encryption,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 4506–4521, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Privacy- friendly forecasting for the smart grid using homomorphic encryption and the group method of data handling,

    J. W. Bos, W. Castryck, I. Iliashenko, and F. Vercauteren, “Privacy- friendly forecasting for the smart grid using homomorphic encryption and the group method of data handling,” in AFRICACRYPT ’17. Springer

  17. [25]

    A secure and privacy-preserving protocol for smart metering operational data collection,

    M. A. Mustafa, S. Cleemput, A. Aly, and A. Abidin, “A secure and privacy-preserving protocol for smart metering operational data collection,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 6481– 6490, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Privacy-friendly aggrega- tion for the smart-grid,

    K. Kursawe, G. Danezis, and M. Kohlweiss, “Privacy-friendly aggrega- tion for the smart-grid,” in PETS ’11. Springer

  19. [27]

    Smart meter aggregation via secret-sharing,

    G. Danezis, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, and S. Zanella-B ´eguelin, “Smart meter aggregation via secret-sharing,” in Proceedings of the first ACM workshop on Smart energy grid security, 2013, pp. 75–80

    2013

  20. [28]

    Fully privacy-preserving distributed optimization in power systems based on secret sharing,

    N. Tian, Q. Guo, H. Sun, and X. Zhou, “Fully privacy-preserving distributed optimization in power systems based on secret sharing,” iEnergy, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 351–362, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Distributed optimization for integrated energy systems with secure multiparty com- putation,

    F. Si, N. Zhang, Y . Wang, P.-Y . Kong, and W. Qiao, “Distributed optimization for integrated energy systems with secure multiparty com- putation,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 7655– 7666, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Bidi- rectional privacy-preserving network-constrained peer-to-peer energy trading based on secure multiparty computation and blockchain,

    X. Zhou, B. Wang, Q. Guo, H. Sun, Z. Pan, and N. Tian, “Bidi- rectional privacy-preserving network-constrained peer-to-peer energy trading based on secure multiparty computation and blockchain,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    An MPC-based privacy-preserving protocol for a local electricity trading market,

    A. Abidin, A. Aly, S. Cleemput, and M. A. Mustafa, “An MPC-based privacy-preserving protocol for a local electricity trading market,” in CANS ’16, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Energy block- based peer-to-peer contract trading with secure multi-party computation 12 in nanogrid,

    C. Mu, T. Ding, Y . Sun, Y . Huang, F. Li, and P. Siano, “Energy block- based peer-to-peer contract trading with secure multi-party computation 12 in nanogrid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4759– 4772, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols,

    R. Canetti, “Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols,” in FOCS, 2001, pp. 136–145

    2001

  26. [34]

    Efficient Multiparty Protocols Using Circuit Randomiza- tion,

    D. Beaver, “Efficient Multiparty Protocols Using Circuit Randomiza- tion,” in CRYPTO ’91. Springer, 1991, pp. 420–432

    1991

  27. [35]

    Secure computation with fixed-point num- bers,

    O. Catrina and A. Saxena, “Secure computation with fixed-point num- bers,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 2010, pp. 35–50

    2010

  28. [36]

    Benchmarking Privacy Preserving Scientific Operations,

    A. Aly and N. P. Smart, “Benchmarking Privacy Preserving Scientific Operations,” in ACNS ’19. Springer, 2019, pp. 509–529

    2019

  29. [37]

    Overdrive: Making SPDZ great again,

    M. Keller, V . Pastro, and D. Rotaru, “Overdrive: Making SPDZ great again,” in EUROCRYPT ’18. Springer, 2018, pp. 158–189

    2018

  30. [38]

    MASCOT: Faster Malicious Arithmetic Secure Computation with Oblivious Transfer,

    M. Keller, E. Orsini, and P. Scholl, “MASCOT: Faster Malicious Arithmetic Secure Computation with Oblivious Transfer,” in CCS ’16, 2016, pp. 830–842

    2016

  31. [39]

    Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation (extended abstract),

    M. Ben-Or, S. Goldwasser, and A. Wigderson, “Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation (extended abstract),” in TOC ’88. ACM

  32. [40]

    Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols (extended abstract),

    D. Chaum, C. Cr ´epeau, and I. Damg ˚ard, “Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols (extended abstract),” in TOC ’88. ACM

  33. [41]

    On a comparison of Newton- Raphson solvers for power flow problems,

    B. Sereeter, C. Vuik, and C. Witteveen, “On a comparison of Newton- Raphson solvers for power flow problems,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 360, pp. 157–169, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Newton-raphson Method in Complex Form,

    H. Le Nguyen, “Newton-raphson Method in Complex Form,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1355–1359, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization. Springer, 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Saad, Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems

    Y . Saad, Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. SIAM, 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    A full proof of the BGW protocol for perfectly secure multiparty computation,

    G. Asharov and Y . Lindell, “A full proof of the BGW protocol for perfectly secure multiparty computation,” J. Cryptol., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 58–151, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    ATLAS: efficient and scalable MPC in the honest majority setting,

    V . Goyal, H. Li, R. Ostrovsky, A. Polychroniadou, and Y . Song, “ATLAS: efficient and scalable MPC in the honest majority setting,” in CRYPTO ’21, vol. 12826. Springer, 2021, pp. 244–274

    2021

  40. [48]

    Universally composable efficient multiparty computation from threshold homomorphic encryption,

    I. Damg ˚ard and J. B. Nielsen, “Universally composable efficient multiparty computation from threshold homomorphic encryption,” in CRYPTO ’03, vol. 2729. Springer, 2003, pp. 247–264

    2003

  41. [49]

    Fast large-scale honest-majority MPC for malicious adversaries,

    K. Chida, K. Hamada, D. Ikarashi, R. Kikuchi, D. Genkin, Y . Lindell, and A. Nof, “Fast large-scale honest-majority MPC for malicious adversaries,” J. Cryptol., vol. 36, no. 3, p. 15, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    SPD Z2k : Efficient MPC mod 2k for Dishonest Majority,

    R. Cramer, I. Damg ˚ard, D. Escudero, P. Scholl, and C. Xing, “SPD Z2k : Efficient MPC mod 2k for Dishonest Majority,” in CRYPTO ’18, vol. 10992. Springer, 2018, pp. 769–798

    2018

  43. [51]

    Cramer, I

    R. Cramer, I. B. Damg ˚ard, and J. B. Nielsen, Secure Multiparty Computation and Secret Sharing. Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Simbench – A Benchmark Dataset of Electric Power Systems to Compare Innovative Solutions Based on Power Flow Analysis,

    S. Meinecke et al., “Simbench – A Benchmark Dataset of Electric Power Systems to Compare Innovative Solutions Based on Power Flow Analysis,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 3290, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    MP-SPDZ: A versatile framework for multi-party computa- tion,

    M. Keller, “MP-SPDZ: A versatile framework for multi-party computa- tion,” in CCS ’20, 2020, pp. 1575–1590

    2020

  46. [54]

    Improved primitives for MPC over mixed arithmetic-binary circuits,

    D. Escudero, S. Ghosh, M. Keller, R. Rachuri, and P. Scholl, “Improved primitives for MPC over mixed arithmetic-binary circuits,” in CRYPTO ’20. Springer, 2020, pp. 823–852

    2020

  47. [55]

    An introduction to secret-sharing-based secure mul- tiparty computation,

    D. Escudero, “An introduction to secret-sharing-based secure mul- tiparty computation,” IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., p. 62, 2022, https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/062

    2022

  48. [56]

    Secure quantized training for deep learning,

    M. Keller and K. Sun, “Secure quantized training for deep learning,” in ICML 2022, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 162. PMLR, 2022, pp. 10 912–10 938

    2022

  49. [57]

    Flexibility service market for active congestion management of distribution networks using flexible energy resources of microgrids,

    E. Amicarelli, T. Q. Tran, and S. Bacha, “Flexibility service market for active congestion management of distribution networks using flexible energy resources of microgrids,” in ISGT-Europe ’17, 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  50. [58]

    Distribution-level flexibility market for congestion management,

    A. Esmat, J. Usaola, and M. A. Moreno, “Distribution-level flexibility market for congestion management,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 5, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    The holomorphic embedding load flow method,

    A. Trias, “The holomorphic embedding load flow method,” in 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012, pp. 1–8

    2012

  52. [60]

    J. W. Demmel, Applied Numerical Linear Algebra. SIAM, 1997. APPENDIX A. Estimation of the admittance matrix The admittance matrix Y , determined by G and B, can be robustly estimated based on the measurements {vR,κ, vI,κ , iR,κ, iI,κ }T κ=0 where T ∈ N is sufficiently large. T...

    1997

Pith tools

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