Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 49 references

Scalable Discrete Event Simulation Tool for Large-Scale Cyber-Physical Energy Systems: Advancing System Efficiency and Scalability

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DESTinE ranks critical utility nodes under denial-of-service attacks faster than real time and derives a hybrid star-radial topology that improves network resilience.

desk verdict A useful, fast cyber-layer simulator for large synthetic grids, but the paper's headline hybrid-topology resilience claim is unsupported: no DoS test is re-run on the hybrid and Table IV only reports wall-clock times. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15198 v1 pith:2VQXH4P3 submitted 2025-04-21 eess.SY cs.SY

Khandaker Akramul Haque , Shining Sun , Xiang Huo , Ana E. Goulart , Katherine R. Davis This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords discreteeventsimulationcyber-physicalpowersystemsdenialofservicenetworkcentralityhybridtopologyscalabilityhardware-in-the-loopsyntheticgrids
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

This paper presents DESTinE, a discrete event simulation tool for the cyber layer of large-scale power systems. DESTinE generates and routes network packets faster than real time—simulating the 10,000-bus ACTIVSg10k case in 1.45 seconds standalone—while modeling congestion and packet loss under normal and denial-of-service conditions. By combining simulation-based delay rankings with graph centrality measures through a constrained optimization, DESTinE classifies utility nodes into six severity levels and selects, for each substation, the star or radial connection that minimizes risk, producing a hybrid topology. The intended payoff is a scalable way for grid operators and planners to assess cyber risk, prioritize defenses, and reconfigure communication networks in near real time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the DESTinE event-driven simulation loop built on SimPy's generator-based processes: five device classes—Packet Generator, Router, Port Monitor, Sink, and Random Brancher—create, forward, queue, monitor, and consume packets, with routers dropping packets when queue capacity is exceeded and forwarding at an average 2.2 packets/sec. Two further pieces do the analytical work: the network analysis matrices (global: the normalized-Laplacian spectral gap and the global clustering coefficient; local: betweenness, eigenvector, and closeness centrality) and the constrained optimization of Equation (6), which reconciles simulation ranks with centrality ranks under a convex objective with weights a,b,c and penalty parameters α0 and α1. The hybrid topology follows from the per-substation rule Th(s), which selects star when its severity score is lower than radial and radial otherwise, with radial as the tie-breaker.

What would settle it

Run the same star and radial overlays on the ACTIVSg2000 and ACTIVSg10k cases in a high-fidelity emulator with the identical traffic and denial-of-service conditions and compare per-utility average-delay rankings; if DESTinE's ranking of the 20 or 80 utilities differs from the emulator's by more than one rank for more than a small fraction of utilities, the severity classification and hybrid topology would not transfer. A cheaper check is absolute delay: DESTinE excludes Layer 2/1 and processing overhead, so its delays should be systematically lower than a full-stack emulator, and any utility pair whose relative delay order flips would break the optimization's weighting of simulation ranks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that DESTinE—built on SimPy's process-driven event simulation with Packet Generator, Router, Port Monitor, Sink, and Random Brancher components—reproduces the delay and congestion behavior of large communication networks well enough to rank cyber-node criticality, and does so at scales emulators cannot reach. On the ACTIVSg500, ACTIVSg2000, and ACTIVSg10k synthetic grids with star and radial cyber overlays, a DoS attack is modeled by dropping each target router's forwarding probability to 0.01; the resulting average-delay rankings of the 4, 20, and 80 utility routers are fused with betweenness, eigenvector, and closeness centrality via a convex optimization whose weights settle at a=0.97, b=0.02, and c=0.01. The optimizer's α0 and α1 penalty parameters, together with the number of substations lost, place each utility into one of six severity classes, and a per-substation rule Th(s) picks star or radial connection to minimize risk, yielding a hybrid topology that the paper reports achieves the shortest simulation completion times in standalone and virtual-server runs. The paper also reports that the relative delay order agrees with the CORE emulator on a five-router test network, and demonstrates integration with a Node.js virtual server and a Raspberry Pi 5 over WiFi 6.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simplified network model—exponential packet sizes averaging 3.4 MB, router service at 2.2 packets per second, and denial of service as a forwarding probability of 0.01, with Layer 2/1 overhead and device processing delays excluded—preserves the relative order of delays and packet losses of real SCADA networks; if that order shifts, the critical-node rankings, the six severity classes, and the hybrid topology lose their empirical basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DESTinE simulates the cyber layer of the 10,000-bus system in about 1.45 seconds standalone, so cyber-layer analysis at the scale of continental synthetic grids becomes practical in near real time (Table IV).
  • The optimizer's weights place most of the ranking weight on betweenness centrality (a=0.97), so the paper's critical-node ordering is primarily a structural property of the communication graph rather than a detail of the traffic model.
  • The hybrid topology, built by choosing star or radial per substation based on lower severity, matches or beats the pure topologies in simulation completion time in standalone and virtual-server configurations, indicating the reconfiguration does not sacrifice speed.
  • Integrating DESTinE with a Node.js virtual server and a Raspberry Pi 5 allows real TCP packets to traverse a WiFi link while the simulator still completes the 10,000-bus case in about 208 seconds, enabling hardware-in-the-loop cyber testing at scale.
  • Because all tested graphs are sparse with spectral gaps at or near zero, the paper argues the optimization converges quickly and the framework transfers to other sparse power-system communication topologies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If DESTinE's delay-order fidelity holds, the same optimization pipeline could be reused for other attack classes—false data injection, man-in-the-middle, and replay—by altering packet content or routing behavior in the event loop; the paper describes these templates but does not test them.
  • The hybrid selection rule Th(s) is a greedy per-substation choice; a natural extension is to solve a global assignment over all substations and regulatory routers simultaneously, which might beat the greedy rule in worst-case attacks.
  • The near-zero spectral gap of every tested graph indicates these networks are highly partitionable; that suggests defender placement at partition boundaries could protect against node loss at least as effectively as reconfiguring to a hybrid topology—a comparison the paper does not run.
  • A decisive extension would be to validate absolute delay and loss magnitudes against a full protocol-stack emulator or live SCADA traffic; the paper's CORE comparison establishes only relative ordering on a five-router network.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents DESTinE, a SimPy-based discrete-event simulator for the cyber layer of large-scale power systems. It overlays star and radial communication topologies on the ACTIVSg500, ACTIVSg2000, and ACTIVSg10k synthetic grids, ranks utility routers using centrality metrics and simulation-derived delays under normal and DoS conditions, introduces a constrained optimization to classify utilities into six severity levels, and proposes a hybrid star/radial topology selected per substation based on those classifications. Performance is reported in standalone mode, with a virtual server, and with a Raspberry Pi 5 hardware-in-the-loop setup, and results are compared with the CORE emulator. The paper claims that DESTinE is efficient and scalable for large-scale cases and that the hybrid topology improves network resilience.

Significance. If the claims were fully substantiated, DESTinE would be a useful open-science contribution: it demonstrates faster-than-real-time simulation of the cyber layer for synthetic grids with up to 10,000 buses, integrates with emulation and hardware, and ships a dataset link for reproducibility. The scale alone is a strength relative to many existing cyber-power co-simulation tools, and the comparison with CORE, though small, is a reasonable first step. However, the headline resilience claim for the hybrid topology is not actually tested, and the ranking/optimization pipeline is largely self-referential. The paper's value for practitioners depends on closing those gaps; with additional validation the tool and the methodology could be a solid contribution to scalable cyber-physical security assessment.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section IV-F, Table IV] The central claim that the hybrid topology 'improve[s] network resilience' is not supported by the reported experiments. Table IV reports only simulation wall-clock completion times for the three configurations. No DoS attack is re-run on the hybrid topology, and no end-to-end delay, packet-loss, or delivery-ratio metrics are given for any topology. In fact, the hybrid is slower than radial for ACTIVSg2000 and equal to star for ACTIVSg10k on the Raspberry Pi 5 configurations, so even the computational-efficiency interpretation is configuration-dependent. A resilience evaluation must directly compare star, radial, and hybrid under the same DoS scenario using network performance metrics, not just simulation runtime.
  2. [Section III-C, Eq. (5); Section IV-D, Eq. (6) and Section IV-E, Eq. (7)] The ranking and topology-selection pipeline is self-referential. Equation (5) constrains |S(v)-T(v)| <= 1, and Eq. (6) enforces |S-T|^2 = 0 or 1, so the optimized ranking T(v) is essentially the simulation ranking S(v) (or S(v) plus or minus one rank). The same T(v) is then used to define the severity classes (via the alpha0/alpha1 values) and, through Eq. (7), to select the hybrid topology. Moreover, the reported weights a=0.97, b=0.02, c=0.01 give the largest objective weight to closeness centrality (1/c = 100), despite the text stating that the simulation ranks correlate most strongly with betweenness centrality. As a result, the optimization does not provide an independent, topology-informed validation of the simulation-based criticality ranking. I recommend evaluating T(v) on held-out attack scenarios or comparing it against an external ground truth.
  3. [Section IV-B, Table II, Remark 1; Section IV-C] The fidelity of the delay and congestion model is not established. Packet sizes are exponentially distributed with a mean of 3.4 MB and routers serve at 2.2 packets/sec, which corresponds to roughly 60 Mbps and is far outside typical SCADA/IEC 61850 traffic profiles. Remark 1 explicitly excludes Layer 2/1 overhead, routing protocol overhead, and device processing delays. The CORE comparison in Section IV-C uses only five routers, 100-byte packets, and matches only the relative order of delays, not absolute values. Without a sensitivity analysis over traffic parameters or validation against a realistic traffic profile, the critical-node rankings and severity classes derived from S(v) are not tied to real network behavior.
  4. [Section IV-D, Eq. (6)] The optimization formulation is internally inconsistent as written. The two constraints |S(v)-T(v)|^2 = 0 (with alpha = alpha0) and |S(v)-T(v)|^2 = 1 (with alpha = alpha1) cannot hold simultaneously for a single decision variable T(v); the text should state that these are two separate optimization runs. In addition, the problem is described as convex, but T(v) is integer-valued (0 to k), making it a mixed-integer problem; the convexity claim needs clarification. Because the resulting alpha0 and alpha1 values drive the entire severity classification and the hybrid topology selection, this ambiguity affects the reproducibility of the paper's main results.
  5. [Section IV-F, Table IV] The scalability evidence lacks statistical grounding. All completion-time entries in Table IV appear to be single measurements, with no repeated trials or error bars, despite the large variability of the Raspberry Pi 5 configurations (e.g., ACTIVSg500 at 17.00 s versus ACTIVSg10k at 208.00 s). At minimum, multiple runs with mean and standard deviation should be reported, particularly for the hardware-in-the-loop setup where WiFi and system load conditions fluctuate.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section IV-E] The section header misspells ACTIVSg2000 as 'ACTiVSG2000'.
  2. [Table II] The table labels 'Max = 0.05 sec' and 'Max = 20 samples/sec' for exponential distributions; an exponential distribution has no maximum, so please clarify whether these are means, upper bounds on sampled values, or parameters of a truncated exponential.
  3. [Equations (5) and (6)] Closeness centrality is denoted inconsistently as Cc(v) in the objectives and CC(v) in Eq. (4); unify the notation.
  4. [Section I-A] Typo: 'cyber-phyiscal' should be 'cyber-physical'.
  5. [Section IV-C] The statement that 'DESTinE successfully simulated over 4700 nodes in approximately 200 seconds with HIL integration' is not directly identifiable in Table IV; please state which row and configuration this refers to.
  6. [Section IV-F] The text says 'each router could generate at least one packet but no more than two packets,' while Table IV lists exact packet counts; please specify how these counts are determined from the topology.
  7. [Appendix / Dataset] The phrase 'allowing the reviewer to further analyze the cases in detail' should be 'allowing readers to analyze the cases in detail.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Severity rankings and the hybrid-topology resilience claim reduce to the simulation ranks that generated them; the standalone scalability results are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-D, Eq. (6), severity classification discussion]
    "For the last two constraints in problem (6), α1 represents a one-rank difference between the simulation and optimized matrix rankings, while α0 indicates a perfect match between the simulation rank and the optimized matrix rank. ... By analyzing the combined effects of substations taken offline and the relative increases in α0 and α1 values compared to the network’s normal state, we developed a classification system to assess the criticality of a utility router under a DoS attack."

    The optimization in Eq. (6) imposes |S_DOS(v) - T_DOS(v)|^2 = 0 (for α0) or = 1 (for α1), so the 'optimized' ranking T_DOS is forced to equal, or to be within one rank of, the simulation ranking S_DOS. The text then states that α0 and α1 measure reliance on the simulation-based ranking, and the six severity classes are built from relative increases in these α values plus substation losses. Consequently the severity classification is a relabeling of the simulation output, not an independent assessment. The centrality matrices are weighted with a=0.97, b=0.02, c=0.01 after observing correlations with the simulation, and the constraint makes T_DOS essentially equal to S_DOS, so the graph-theoretic component is not providing an independent criticality prediction.

  2. self definitional [Section IV-E, Eq. (7); Abstract]
    "Based on the solution of the optimization problem, a new hybrid network topology is also derived, combining the strengths of star and radial structures to improve network resilience. ... Star, if Rs < Rr; Radial, if Rr < Rs; Radial, if Rs = Rr"

    The hybrid topology is defined as the per-substation argmin of the severity values Rs and Rr, which are themselves produced by the DESTinE optimizer that is constrained to the simulation ranking S(v). Therefore the hybrid topology is lower-or-equal in simulated severity than either pure topology by construction; the abstract's claim that it improves network resilience is a restatement of the selection rule rather than an independently tested prediction. Table IV, the only quantitative evaluation of the hybrid, reports simulation wall-clock completion times, not delay, packet loss, or delivery ratio under the DoS attack, so the resilience improvement is never validated with an independent metric.

full rationale

The core DESTinE contribution—a SimPy-based discrete-event simulator, its faster-than-real-time execution, the CORE comparison on a small network, and the standalone/virtual-server/Raspberry-Pi scalability runs in Table IV—is self-contained and externally benchmarked, so that part is not circular. The circularity is confined to the risk-assessment pipeline. Eq. (6) constrains the optimized ranking T_DOS to equal the simulation ranking S_DOS exactly or within one rank, and the severity classes are then defined from the α0/α1 deviations that measure that same match; thus the six risk levels are a renaming of the simulated ranking rather than a derived prediction. Eq. (7) then constructs the hybrid topology by picking, for each substation, the topology with the lower severity value produced by that same optimizer, making the abstract's 'improve network resilience' claim true by definition. The paper does not re-run the DoS scenario on the hybrid topology against delay, packet loss, or delivery metrics, so no independent confirmation is offered. Self-citations [11] and [12] supply model generation and the CORE setup but are not load-bearing for the circular equations, so the score reflects partial, definitional circularity in the central resilience-ranking and hybrid-topology claims rather than a self-citation chain.

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

The paper's central claims rest on a hand-built simulation stack: topology from [11], traffic and queue parameters from Table II, a reduced-probability DoS model, and an optimization whose weights and alpha values are fitted to the same simulation. These are not external benchmarks. The physical power system is not simulated, and the paper itself notes overhead omissions (Remark 1) and missing EMT (Section V).

free parameters (6)
  • Packet forwarding rate at routers = 2.2 packets/sec (exponential mean)
    Set in Table II as a fixed input; determines service delay and queue buildup in every scenario.
  • Packet size distribution mean = 3.4 MB (exponential)
    Table II; a single traffic-scale assumption that controls queue capacity usage and delay, despite real SCADA packets being far smaller.
  • DoS forwarding probability = 0.01 (drop probability 0.99)
    Section IV-B; hand-chosen to make the attack measurable; the resulting delays are an artifact of this value.
  • Optimization weights a, b, c = 0.97, 0.02, 0.01
    Section IV-D; selected after observing correlations between simulation ranks and centrality matrices; they directly set the blended rank T(v).
  • Penalty values alpha0 and alpha1 = Per utility, e.g., 0.1 to 5.0
    Tables VIII-XII; computed from the distance between S(v) and T(v) and used to classify severity; thresholds are post hoc.
  • Severity class boundaries = Six levels (Elevated 1 to Catastrophic 6)
    Section IV-D; rules depend on alpha0, alpha1, and substations lost, and are not defined for the 4-utility ACTIVSg500 case.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The cyber topology overlay from the automatic generator in [11] is a valid stand-in for real power-system communication networks
    Every experiment uses these synthetic cyber layers; no real-world communication topology is compared.
  • domain assumption Exponential packet sizes, exponential inter-arrival times, and a fixed router port rate reproduce realistic SCADA traffic
    Table II sets these distributions with no real traffic traces or validation against field data.
  • ad hoc to paper A DoS attack is equivalent to lowering a target router's forwarding probability to 0.01
    Section IV-B introduces this reduction as the attack model; no attacker traffic, protocol, or queue-occupancy dynamics are modeled.
  • domain assumption Layer 2 and Layer 1 overhead, routing protocol messages, and device processing delays are negligible for ranking critical nodes
    Remark 1 states these are excluded and admits this may overestimate performance.
  • domain assumption Centrality scores and simulated average delays are valid proxies for operational criticality of utility routers
    Section III maps graph metrics and delays to criticality without any ground-truth outage impact data.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimization in Eq. (6) is convex and its solution is the reported a, b, c, alpha values
    Section IV-D asserts convexity and reports parameter values, but the rank constraints and denominators make the convexity claim unsupported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Discrete Event Simulation Tool for Large-Scale Cyber-Physical Energy Systems: Advancing System Efficiency and Scalability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VQXH4P3

@misc{pith2026250415198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Discrete Event Simulation Tool for Large-Scale Cyber-Physical Energy Systems: Advancing System Efficiency and Scalability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VQXH4P3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15198}
}
read the original abstract

Modern power systems face growing risks from cyber-physical attacks, necessitating enhanced resilience due to their societal function as critical infrastructures. The challenge is that defense of large-scale systems-of-systems requires scalability in their threat and risk assessment environment for cyber physical analysis including cyber-informed transmission planning, decision-making, and intrusion response. Hence, we present a scalable discrete event simulation tool for analysis of energy systems, called DESTinE. The tool is tailored for largescale cyber-physical systems, with a focus on power systems. It supports faster-than-real-time traffic generation and models packet flow and congestion under both normal and adversarial conditions. Using three well-established power system synthetic cases with 500, 2000, and 10,000 buses, we overlay a constructed cyber network employing star and radial topologies. Experiments are conducted to identify critical nodes within a communication network in response to a disturbance. The findings are incorporated into a constrained optimization problem to assess the impact of the disturbance on a specific node and its cascading effects on the overall network. Based on the solution of the optimization problem, a new hybrid network topology is also derived, combining the strengths of star and radial structures to improve network resilience. Furthermore, DESTinE is integrated with a virtual server and a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) system using Raspberry Pi 5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15198 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the framework of the simulation tool, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of cell (a) Star topology and (b) Radial topology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The connection of network elements visualized in DESTinE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The connection of network elements visualized in DESTinE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the simulation tool with Common Open [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Severity classifications of DoS impact on utility for AC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The electric grid and severe resiliency events,

    T. J. Overbye, K. R. Davis, and A. B. Birchfield, “The electric grid and severe resiliency events,” National Academy of Engineering, Technical Report, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Confirmation of a coordinated attack on the Ukrainian power grid,

    M. J. Assante, “Confirmation of a coordinated attack on the Ukrainian power grid,” SANS Industrial Control Systems , January 2016. [Online]. Available: ics.sans.org/blog/2016/01/09/ confirmation-of-a-coordinated-attack-on-the-ukrainian-power-grid

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Hacking power grids: A current problem,

    N. Kshetri and J. V oas, “Hacking power grids: A current problem,” Computer, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 91–95, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    A Reinforcement Learning Engine with Reduced Action and State Space for Scalable Cyber-Physical Optimal Response

    S. Sun, K. A. Haque, X. Huo, L. Homoud Al, S. Hossain-McKenzie, A. Goulart, and K. Davis, “A reinforcement learning engine with reduced action and state space for scalable cyber-physical optimal response,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04518 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [5]

    Reliability modeling of cyber-physical elec- tric power systems: A system-theoretic framework,

    A. D. Dominguez-Garcia, “Reliability modeling of cyber-physical elec- tric power systems: A system-theoretic framework,” in2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–5

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Modeling of cyber-physical intra-dependencies in elec- tric power grids and their effect on resilience,

    A. Kwasinski, “Modeling of cyber-physical intra-dependencies in elec- tric power grids and their effect on resilience,” in 2020 8th Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Electric grid test case repository: Texas a&m university,

    “Electric grid test case repository: Texas a&m university,” accessed: April 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://electricgrids.engr.tamu.edu/ electric-grid-test-cases/

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Cyber-physical models for power grid security analysis: 8-substation case,

    G. A. Weaver, K. Davis, C. M. Davis, E. J. Rogers, R. B. Bobba, S. Zonouz, R. Berthier, P. W. Sauer, and D. M. Nicol, “Cyber-physical models for power grid security analysis: 8-substation case,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (Smart- GridComm). IEEE, 2016, pp. 140–146

    work page 2016

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    A cyber topology model for the texas 2000 synthetic electric power grid,

    P. Wlazlo, K. Price, C. Veloz, A. Sahu, H. Huang, A. Goulart, K. Davis, and S. Zounouz, “A cyber topology model for the texas 2000 synthetic electric power grid,” in 2019 Principles, Systems and Applications of IP Telecommunications (IPTComm). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2000

  2. [10]

    A gnn-based generative model for generating synthetic cyber-physical power system topology,

    Y . Liu, H. Xie, A. Presekal, A. Stefanov, and P. Palensky, “A gnn-based generative model for generating synthetic cyber-physical power system topology,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A scalable automatic model generation tool for cyber-physical network topologies and data flows for large-scale synthetic power grid models,

    S. Israel, S. Kunkolienkar, A. Goulart, K. Davis, and T. Overbye, “A scalable automatic model generation tool for cyber-physical network topologies and data flows for large-scale synthetic power grid models,”

  4. [12]

    On graph theory vs. time-domain discrete-event simulation for topology-informed assessment of power grid cyber risk,

    K. A. Haque, L. Al Homoud, X. Zhuang, M. Elnour, A. Goulart, and K. Davis, “On graph theory vs. time-domain discrete-event simulation for topology-informed assessment of power grid cyber risk,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Com- puting T...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Simpy: Discrete event simulation for python,

    “Simpy: Discrete event simulation for python,” accessed: April 15,

  6. [14]

    A performance com- parison of recent network simulators,

    E. Weingartner, H. V om Lehn, and K. Wehrle, “A performance com- parison of recent network simulators,” in 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–5

    2009

  7. [15]

    Available: https://simpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    [Online]. Available: https://simpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

  8. [16]

    5gpy: A simpy-based simulator for performance evaluations in 5g hybrid cloud-fog ran architectures,

    R. I. Tinini, M. R. P. dos Santos, G. B. Figueiredo, and D. M. Batista, “5gpy: A simpy-based simulator for performance evaluations in 5g hybrid cloud-fog ran architectures,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 101, p. 102030, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Performance analysis of 5g network slicing simulations using simpy,

    Z. A. Syed, S. Gummadi, E. Mahima, S. R. Naina, S. Eswaran, and P. Honnavalli, “Performance analysis of 5g network slicing simulations using simpy,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  10. [18]

    Modeling and simulating cyber-physical systems using cyphysim,

    E. A. Lee, M. Niknami, T. S. Nouidui, and M. Wetter, “Modeling and simulating cyber-physical systems using cyphysim,” in 2015 Interna- tional Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 115–124

    2015

  11. [19]

    Core: A real-time network emulator,

    J. Ahrenholz, C. Danilov, T. R. Henderson, and J. H. Kim, “Core: A real-time network emulator,” in MILCOM 2008-2008 IEEE Military Communications Conference. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–7

    2008

  12. [20]

    Cossim: An open-source integrated solution to address the sim- ulator gap for systems of systems,

    A. Brokalakis, N. Tampouratzis, A. Nikitakis, I. Papaefstathiou, S. An- drianakis, D. Pau, E. Plebani, M. Paracchini, M. Marcon, I. Sourdis et al. , “Cossim: An open-source integrated solution to address the sim- ulator gap for systems of systems,” in 2018 21st Euromicro Confe...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Cps-sim: Co-simulation for cyber-physical systems with accurate time synchro- nization,

    A. Suzuki, K. Masutomi, I. Ono, H. Ishii, and T. Onoda, “Cps-sim: Co-simulation for cyber-physical systems with accurate time synchro- nization,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 51, no. 23, pp. 70–75, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Design and evaluation of a cyber-physical testbed for improving attack resilience of power systems,

    A. Sahu, P. Wlazlo, Z. Mao, H. Huang, A. Goulart, K. Davis, and S. Zonouz, “Design and evaluation of a cyber-physical testbed for improving attack resilience of power systems,” IET Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory & Applications , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 208–227, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    A real-time cyber-physical simulation testbed for cybersecurity assessment of large-scale power systems,

    T.-T. Nguyen, R. Kadavil, and H. Hooshyar, “A real-time cyber-physical simulation testbed for cybersecurity assessment of large-scale power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Is mininet the right solution for an sdn testbed?

    O. Flauzac, E. M. G. Robledo, and F. Nolot, “Is mininet the right solution for an sdn testbed?” in 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  17. [25]

    Real time modeling, co-simulation and cyber-physical analysis for dc microgrid clusters,

    S. Jena, P. S. Sarker, P. Sanjeev, N. P. Padhy, and A. Srivastava, “Real time modeling, co-simulation and cyber-physical analysis for dc microgrid clusters,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES) , 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  18. [26]

    An advanced visualization platform for real-time power system operations,

    R. Klump, D. Schooley, and T. Overbye, “An advanced visualization platform for real-time power system operations,” in Proc. of the 14th Power Systems Computation Conference , vol. 2, 2002, p. 3

    2002

  19. [27]

    Dos and ddos attacks in software defined networks: A survey of existing solutions and research challenges,

    L. F. Eliyan and R. Di Pietro, “Dos and ddos attacks in software defined networks: A survey of existing solutions and research challenges,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 122, pp. 149–171, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    A review of scalable and privacy-preserving multi-agent frameworks for distributed energy resources,

    X. Huo, H. Huang, K. R. Davis, H. V . Poor, and M. Liu, “A review of scalable and privacy-preserving multi-agent frameworks for distributed energy resources,” Advances in Applied Energy , p. 100205, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Raspberry pi foundation,

    “Raspberry pi foundation,” accessed: April 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-5/

    2025

  22. [30]

    A metric-based validation process to assess the realism of synthetic power grids,

    A. B. Birchfield, E. Schweitzer, M. H. Athari, T. Xu, T. J. Overbye, A. Scaglione, and Z. Wang, “A metric-based validation process to assess the realism of synthetic power grids,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1233, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Design of next-generation cyber-physical energy manage- ment systems: Monitoring to mitigation,

    A. Sahu, K. Davis, H. Huang, A. Umunnakwe, S. Zonouz, and A. Goulart, “Design of next-generation cyber-physical energy manage- ment systems: Monitoring to mitigation,” IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy , vol. 10, pp. 151–163, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Power flow convergence and reactive power planning in the creation of large synthetic grids,

    A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, and T. J. Overbye, “Power flow convergence and reactive power planning in the creation of large synthetic grids,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6667–6674, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,

    A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Over- bye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,” IEEE Transactions on power systems , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3258–3265, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    T. A. Short, Electric power distribution handbook . CRC press, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    Planet: A radial layout algorithm for network visualization,

    G. Huang, Y . Li, X. Tan, Y . Tan, and X. Lu, “Planet: A radial layout algorithm for network visualization,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , vol. 539, p. 122948, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    M. J. Donahoo and K. L. Calvert, TCP/IP sockets in C: practical guide for programmers. Morgan Kaufmann, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    A real-time control framework for smart power networks with star topology,

    X. Zhang and A. Papachristodoulou, “A real-time control framework for smart power networks with star topology,” in 2013 American Control Conference, 2013, pp. 5062–5067

    2013

  30. [38]

    Bertsekas and R

    D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data networks. Athena Scientific, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Wireshark user’s guide,

    U. Lamping and E. Warnicke, “Wireshark user’s guide,” Interface, vol. 4, no. 6, p. 1, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    Measuring and modeling bi- partite graphs with community structure,

    S. G. Aksoy, T. G. Kolda, and A. Pinar, “Measuring and modeling bi- partite graphs with community structure,” Journal of Complex Networks , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 581–603, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    F. R. Chung, Spectral graph theory . American Mathematical Soc., 1997, vol. 92

    1997

  34. [42]

    Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality,

    P. Bonacich, “Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality,” Social networks, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 555–564, 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality,

    S. P. Borgatti and M. G. Everett, “A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality,” Social networks , vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 466–484, 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    A. J. Wood, B. F. Wollenberg, and G. B. Shebl ´e, Power generation, operation, and control . John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Score: Smart-grid common open research emulator,

    S. Tan, W.-Z. Song, Q. Dong, and L. Tong, “Score: Smart-grid common open research emulator,” in 2012 IEEE third international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm) . IEEE, 2012, pp. 282–287

    2012

  38. [46]

    Dataset for destine,

    K. A. Haque, S. SUN, X. HUO, A. GOULART, and K. DA VIS, “Dataset for destine,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10. 21227/m1qf-f385

    2025

  39. [47]

    Raspberry Pi 5’s wi-fi tested: Up to 3x faster,

    A. Piltch, “Raspberry Pi 5’s wi-fi tested: Up to 3x faster,” 2023, accessed: April 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www. tomshardware.com/news/raspberry-pi-5-wi-fi-faster

    2023

  40. [49]

    On securing the global eco- nomical dispatch in dc microgrid clusters: An event-driven approach,

    S. Jena, N. P. Padhy, and A. K. Srivastava, “On securing the global eco- nomical dispatch in dc microgrid clusters: An event-driven approach,” 19 IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 6758–6773, 2024. 20

    2024

  41. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06396

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06396

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.