Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Clustered Federated Learning for Generalizable FDIA Detection in Smart Grids with Heterogeneous Data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that clustered, hierarchical federated averaging gives 94.63% average FDIA detection accuracy on non-IID smart grid data while cutting communication.

desk verdict The FedClusAvg pipeline is a sensible combination of known ideas and the tables are consistent, but Eq. 14 contradicts the prose on the core aggregation rule, leaving the central mechanism undefined and the empirical claims unreproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14999 v2 pith:GBGVEFWC submitted 2025-07-20 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY

Yunfeng Li , Junhong Liu , Zhaohui Yang , Guofu Liao , Chuyun Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
keywords falsedatainjectionattackfederatedlearningnon-IIDsmartgridsecurityclusteredaggregationhierarchicalcommunicationFedClusAvg
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

Smart grid measurement data is non-IID across regions, which degrades standard federated FDIA detectors. The paper's claim is that a clustered, hierarchical federated design fixes this: FedClusAvg partitions each client's local samples into sub-clients, trains them in parallel, and merges them with deviation-based weights; FedClusAvg+ inserts sub-servers between clients and the central server. The authors report that FedClusAvg+ reaches 94.63% average accuracy and 0.9425 AUC across IEEE 118-bus, IEEE 300-bus, regional, and provincial grid benchmarks, beating FedAvg, FedProx, and FedNova on every metric while consuming fewer communication rounds and less bandwidth. A sympathetic reader should care because the design addresses three practical obstacles at once: privacy, non-IID heterogeneity, and communication cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is client-side sample clustering followed by deviation-weighted aggregation at two levels. Each client with more than 300 samples is partitioned into sub-clients by a greedy farthest-point clustering routine (labeled SpectralClust in the pseudocode): pick a threshold, choose the farthest sample from the first center as the second center, keep adding centers while any sample's minimum distance to existing centers exceeds the threshold, then assign every sample to its nearest center. Each sub-client trains a copy of the model in parallel, and the client merges the sub-models with weights inversely proportional to the distance of each sub-model's gradient from the client's average gradient. The server applies the same deviation-weighting rule to the client models, and in FedClusAvg+ an intermediate sub-server tier performs this aggregation for a subset of clients before forwarding results to the central server; that extra tier is what the paper credits for reduced communication rounds and bandwidth.

What would settle it

Retrain FedClusAvg+ and FedAvg+ on the IEEE 300-bus system using FDIA labels produced by a documented attack generator, holding the same label-skewing protocol; if the accuracy gap over FedAvg+ is no longer around 2.5 points on average, the reported generalization advantage rests on the paper's undisclosed label generation rather than on the clustering and hierarchy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that local model divergence under non-IID data can be reduced by clustering samples inside each client before local training, and then weighting the aggregation of both sub-clients and clients by how far their updates deviate from the average. On the paper's four benchmarks, FedClusAvg+ attains an average accuracy of 94.63% and AUC of 0.9425, outperforming FedAvg+, FedProx, and FedNova on every reported metric; the accuracy gap over FedAvg+ grows from roughly 1.8 points on the IEEE 118-bus system to 2.5 points on the provincial grid, and reaches 8.5 to 9.9 points under very high client heterogeneity. The authors attribute this to the combination of hierarchical communication and clustered aggregation, which mitigates model drift, regional misclassification, and communication latency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic FDIA labels on the IEEE 118/300, regional, and provincial grids faithfully mimic real attacks, but the paper never describes how attack samples are generated, so if those labels are unrepresentative, every reported accuracy and AUC advantage is an artifact of the benchmark rather than the algorithm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported margins hold, moving from a flat federated architecture to a client-subserver-server one should give the largest accuracy gains on the largest grids, since the gap over FedAvg+ grows with system scale.
  • At 1:9 attack:normal class imbalance, the method is claimed to lift precision by 8.2 points, recall by 6.3 points, and F1 by 7.3 points over FedAvg+, meaning rare attacks are caught without a proportional jump in false alarms.
  • The hierarchical tier cuts per-round communication delay by roughly 15.6% under WiFi and by 15% under 5G, so the design is meant to run on bandwidth-limited substation links.
  • Since only model parameters are shared, the scheme is positioned as compatible with data-sharing restrictions between regional operators, which centralized FDIA training cannot satisfy.
  • Under very high heterogeneity, accuracy stays above 89.7% on the 300-bus system and 85.2% on the provincial grid, indicating the method is designed for the regime where standard FedAvg collapses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A next step the paper leaves implicit is to compare total bytes exchanged and rounds-to-target-accuracy, not just per-round latency, since that is what determines operational bandwidth savings.
  • Because the deviation-weighting rule is a form of robust aggregation, the same mechanism could be tested against Byzantine clients that send poisoned updates; large-deviation weighting may either filter them out or, if an adversary controls many clients, amplify harm.
  • The reported benchmarks use synthetic attacks generated without a stated procedure; a public FDIA benchmark with documented attack construction would clarify whether the clustering advantage transfers to coordinated adversaries that craft stealthy vectors.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedClusAvg and FedClusAvg+, federated learning variants for false data injection attack (FDIA) detection in smart grids. The methods combine client-side sample clustering into sub-clients, deviation-based weighted aggregation, and, in FedClusAvg+, a three-tier client–sub-server–server communication hierarchy. The authors claim improved detection accuracy, robustness under Non-IID data, and reduced communication cost compared with FedAvg, FedProx, and FedNova, based on experiments on IEEE 118-bus, IEEE 300-bus, and two in-house regional/provincial grid datasets. The central technical mechanism is a weighted aggregation rule intended to down-weight clients whose local parameters deviate strongly from the global average.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would address a practically important problem: privacy-preserving FDIA detection under heterogeneous smart-grid data with communication constraints. The hierarchical architecture and client-side clustering are reasonable ideas, and the comparison against FedAvg, FedProx, and FedNova across multiple system scales is a useful evaluation design. However, the current manuscript has load-bearing ambiguities and reproducibility gaps that prevent the experimental claims from being interpreted: the aggregation formula contradicts the verbal description, the FDIA-labeled datasets and attack-generation protocol are not described, and no uncertainty quantification is provided. The paper therefore cannot currently be accepted as evidence for the claimed improvements, despite the plausibility of the underlying approach.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A, Eqs. (13)-(15) and Table II] The aggregation rule is defined inconsistently. The text states that a large parameter deviation should reduce the client's weight and a small deviation should increase it, but Eq. (14) sets η = ||w̃ − w_m|| / Σ_m ||w̃ − w_m||, which makes the aggregation weight proportional to the deviation. Table II's server pseudocode uses the same proportional rule, and Eq. (11) does the same at the client level. Since proportional and inverse weighting can produce materially different global models under Non-IID data, the algorithm as written is not well-defined. The authors must state which rule was actually used in Tables VI-VIII and X-XIII, correct the equations or the prose, and rerun the experiments with a single unambiguous rule.
  2. [Section III.A and Section III.C, Tables IX-XIII] The data-generation process is not described. Reference [30] is MATPOWER, which does not provide FDIA labels, yet the paper reports accuracy and AUC on 'IEEE 118-Bus dataset,' 'IEEE 300-Bus,' 'regional power grid,' and 'provincial power grid' without explaining how attack samples were synthesized, what attack models were used, or how the in-house regional/provincial grids were constructed. The claim that FedClusAvg+ 'achieves an average Accuracy of 94.63% and AUC of 0.9425' across these systems is therefore not reproducible, and the generalization analysis cannot be evaluated. A complete description of the attack-injection procedure and dataset construction is required.
  3. [Tables VI-VIII and Section III.B] No statistical significance or variability information is reported. The tables list minimum, first quartile, median, mean, and maximum, but it is unclear whether these statistics are computed across clients, across training rounds, or across independent runs. There are no error bars, standard deviations, or confidence intervals, and no indication of how many random seeds were used. The reported performance gaps of 1-3 percentage points in accuracy may be within run-to-run variance. The experiments should be repeated with multiple seeds and the variability reported.
  4. [Section III.A and reference [31]] The local detection model is only identified as 'the Rec-AD model we proposed in reference [31],' a self-cited preprint. No architecture, loss function, or hyperparameter details are given in this paper, and no public implementation is provided. Because all experimental results depend on this model, the specification is incomplete. The model should either be described in sufficient detail or the code should be released so that the experiments can be reproduced.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (7)] The standardization formula x*_ki = (x_ki − x_ki)/√s_ki is dimensionally inconsistent: it appears to use the mean and variance of a single sample rather than feature-wise statistics over the dataset. Please rewrite the formula to standardize each feature across samples.
  2. [Section II.A, Eq. (9)] The distance D12 = √((Z1−Z2)^2) is not a proper vector norm; for vectors it should be written as ||Z1−Z2||, with the norm defined appropriately.
  3. [Table I and Section II.A] The pseudocode is labeled 'SpectralClust,' but the described procedure is a longest-distance or complete-linkage-style clustering heuristic, not spectral clustering. The naming is misleading and should be corrected.
  4. [Abstract and Section II] The method is called 'Federated Cluster Average' in the abstract but 'Federated Clustered Averaging' in the main text. Please use one consistent name throughout.
  5. [Table VI] The metric name 'Precison' is misspelled; it should be 'Precision.' Also, Figures 4-6 are captioned as 'Model KS values' but appear to show ROC curves; the captions should match the content.
  6. [Section I, Fig. 1 and Section II] The phrase 'the samples of each client are encrypted and aligned' suggests secure computation, but no encryption or alignment protocol is specified anywhere in the paper. The privacy claim should be stated precisely, or this sentence should be revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central empirical comparison is against external FL baselines on the IEEE 118-bus benchmark, and the sole self-citation (Rec-AD as local detector) is shared across all compared methods, so the relative gains are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is empirical: FedClusAvg/FedClusAvg+ improves FDIA detection accuracy, AUC, and communication efficiency relative to FedAvg, FedProx, and FedNova. These comparisons are made under the same local detection model (Rec-AD, reference [31]) and the same label-skewing protocol on the public IEEE 118-bus dataset, so the aggregation method is the only varying component. The closest thing to a circular dependency is the use of the authors' own prior preprint Rec-AD as the local model; however, because the baselines use the same model, the relative improvement of FedClusAvg+ is not an artifact of self-citation. The generalization tables on regional and provincial grids use datasets whose generation is not described, which is a reproducibility and external-validity concern, but the paper does not define those datasets in terms of the method's output, so this is not circularity. There is a notable internal inconsistency: the prose states that large parameter deviation should reduce a client's aggregation weight, while Eq. (14) and Table II set the weight proportional to deviation from the weighted mean. This makes the implemented aggregation rule ambiguous and is a serious correctness/reproducibility defect, but it is not a circularity because no output is assumed as an input; it is an undefined implementation choice. Overall, no prediction or derived result reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or forced self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm depends on several hand-chosen thresholds, an unproven assumption that parameter deviation proxies reliability, and an unverified dataset generation protocol. No code or data is provided, and the central weighting equation contradicts the stated intent, so the method's behavior is not pinned down by the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Clustering threshold theta = not specified (0 < theta < 1)
    Controls the number of local subclusters in the clustering heuristic; no value or sensitivity analysis is reported in the experiments.
  • Cluster distance multiplier = 1.2
    Hand-chosen threshold in Table II and Table III that decides whether client-side clustering is kept or the original data is used; no justification or ablation is given.
  • Cluster count heuristic = ceil(sqrt(n/50))
    Hand-selected formula for the number of subclusters per client, based on the local sample count; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Learning rate alpha = 0.01
    Fixed hyperparameter in Table V; no tuning study or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Local epochs E = 10
    Fixed hyperparameter in Table V; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Feature subset = 13 features
    Selected after 'multiple rounds of feature engineering and validation' in Section III.A, with no held-out feature selection procedure described, which can inflate apparent performance.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Parameter deviation from the global average is a proxy for a client's contribution reliability.
    Section II-A introduces this to motivate the weighting scheme, but Eq 14 weights the deviation in the opposite direction, so the assumption is not consistently implemented.
  • ad hoc to paper The longest-distance clustering heuristic with threshold theta creates meaningful sub-clients with adequate separability.
    Section II-A and Table II use this heuristic, but no validation is provided that the resulting sub-clients improve learning beyond retaining the original client data.
  • domain assumption The FDIA labels and the non-IID partition protocol used in the experiments faithfully represent real smart grid attack conditions.
    Section III-A describes label skewing but not how attack samples are generated; all experimental conclusions depend on this unstated representativeness assumption.
  • domain assumption The local detector Rec-AD (reference 31) provides a sound and representative base model for all compared FL algorithms.
    Section III-A states that FDIA detection uses Rec-AD, which is described only in a separate self-cited preprint and is not specified in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustered Federated Learning for Generalizable FDIA Detection in Smart Grids with Heterogeneous Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBGVEFWC

@misc{pith2026250714999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustered Federated Learning for Generalizable FDIA Detection in Smart Grids with Heterogeneous Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBGVEFWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14999}
}
read the original abstract

False Data Injection Attacks (FDIAs) pose severe security risks to smart grids by manipulating measurement data collected from spatially distributed devices such as SCADA systems and PMUs. These measurements typically exhibit Non-Independent and Identically Distributed (Non-IID) characteristics across different regions, which significantly challenges the generalization ability of detection models. Traditional centralized training approaches not only face privacy risks and data sharing constraints but also incur high transmission costs, limiting their scalability and deployment feasibility. To address these issues, this paper proposes a privacy-preserving federated learning framework, termed Federated Cluster Average (FedClusAvg), designed to improve FDIA detection in Non-IID and resource-constrained environments. FedClusAvg incorporates cluster-based stratified sampling and hierarchical communication (client-subserver-server) to enhance model generalization and reduce communication overhead. By enabling localized training and weighted parameter aggregation, the algorithm achieves accurate model convergence without centralizing sensitive data. Experimental results on benchmark smart grid datasets demonstrate that FedClusAvg not only improves detection accuracy under heterogeneous data distributions but also significantly reduces communication rounds and bandwidth consumption. This work provides an effective solution for secure and efficient FDIA detection in large-scale distributed power systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Federated Learning Framework weighted strategies to mitigate client drift and improve convergence under Non-IID conditions. 2) Hierarchical Communication Structure: Intermediate sub-servers first perform cluster-level aggregation before forwarding results to the central server. This significantly reduces communication rounds and improves scalability in large-scale systems. 3) Privacy Preservation: Only model paramet… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FedClusAvg algorithm flow In federated learning, assuming that there are K individual clients participating in training, Pk represents the local data set stored in the k th client, and the sample size is nk, then the objective function is: f(w) = X K k=1 nk n Fk(w) (4) Fk(w) = 1 nk X i∈Pk fi(w) (5) fi(w) = l(xi , yi ; wi) (6) Local Client-Side Operations: On the client side, to mitigate the Non-IID characteristics i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FedClusAvg+ algorithm results are subsequently transmitted to the central server for global averaging. Once the central model is updated, the new parameters are disseminated back to each sub-server, which then distributes them to the respective clients. The overall workflow of FedClusAvg+ is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model KS values by FedClusAvg (left) algorithm and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FedClusAvg vs FedClusAvg+ Communication efficiency To address this limitation, FedClusAvg+ introduces an intermediate layer of sub-servers, forming a hierarchi￾cal client–sub-server–central server communication topology. During each communication round, clients first t…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Matpower-a matlab power system simulation package: User

    R. Zimmerman, C. Murillo-Sanchez, and D. Gan, “Matpower-a matlab power system simulation package: User”s manual,” 12 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [31]

    Rec-AD: An Efficient Computation Framework for FDIA Detection Based on Tensor Train Decomposition and Deep Learning Recommendation Model

    Y . Li, J. Liu, Z. Yang, G. Liao, and C. Zhang, “Rec-ad: An efficient computation framework for fdia detection based on tensor train de- composition and deep learning recommendation model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14668, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Detection of false data injection attacks in smart grid: A secure federated deep learning approach,

    Y . Li, X. Wei, Y . Li, Z. Dong, and M. Shahidehpour, “Detection of false data injection attacks in smart grid: A secure federated deep learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4862– 4872, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Federated Learning for Smart Grid: A Survey on Applications and Potential Vulnerabilities

    Z. Zhang, S. Rath, J. Xu, and T. Xiao, “Federated learning for smart grid: A survey on applications and potential vulnerabilities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10764, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    Anomaly detection based on lstm and autoencoders using federated learning in smart electric grid,

    R. Shrestha, M. Mohammadi, S. Sinaei, A. Salcines, D. Pampliega, R. Clemente, A. L. Sanz, E. Nowroozi, and A. Lindgren, “Anomaly detection based on lstm and autoencoders using federated learning in smart electric grid,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 193, p. 104951, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    Byzantine-resilient distributed p2p energy trading via spatial-temporal anomaly detection,

    J. Liu, Q. Long, R.-P. Liu, W. Liu, and Y . Hou, “Byzantine-resilient distributed p2p energy trading via spatial-temporal anomaly detection,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [5]

    A comprehensive survey of false data injection in smart grid,

    Z. Guan, N. Sun, Y . Xu, and T. Yang, “A comprehensive survey of false data injection in smart grid,” International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    A federated learning approach to anomaly detection in smart buildings,

    R. Sater and A. Hamza, “A federated learning approach to anomaly detection in smart buildings,” ACM Transactions on Internet of Things ,

    work page

Show all 35 references
  1. [7]

    Privacy- preserving peer-to-peer energy trading via hybrid secure computations,

    J. Liu, Q. Long, R.-P. Liu, W. Liu, X. Cui, and Y . Hou, “Privacy- preserving peer-to-peer energy trading via hybrid secure computations,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1951–1964, 2023

    1951

  2. [8]

    Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the european parliament and of the council,

    P. Regulation, “Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the european parliament and of the council,” Regulation (eu), vol. 679, p. 2016, 2016

    2016

  3. [9]

    Edge intelligence for smart grid: A survey on application potentials,

    H. B. Gooi, T. Wang, and Y . Tang, “Edge intelligence for smart grid: A survey on application potentials,” CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1623–1640, 2023

    2023

  4. [10]

    Federated learning for enhanced cyber- security and trustworthiness in 5g and 6g networks: A comprehensive survey,

    A. Blika, S. Palmos, G. Doukas, V . Lamprou, S. Pelekis, M. Kontoulis, C. Ntanos, and D. Askounis, “Federated learning for enhanced cyber- security and trustworthiness in 5g and 6g networks: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , 2024

    2024

  5. [11]

    Utilizing federated learning and shap for predictive analysis in smart grid security,

    S. Sudhakara and L. Haghnegahdar, “Utilizing federated learning and shap for predictive analysis in smart grid security,” in World Congress in Computer Science . Springer, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-85628-0 37

    2024 doi

  6. [12]

    Secure and efficient federated learning for smart grid with edge-cloud collaboration,

    Z. Su, Y . Wang, T. H. Luan, N. Zhang, F. Li, T. Chen, and H. Cao, “Secure and efficient federated learning for smart grid with edge-cloud collaboration,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1333–1344, 2021

    2021

  7. [13]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,

    Q. Yang, Y . Liu, T. Chen, and Y . Tong, “Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

    Personal information protection in china: legal evolution and challenges,

    R. Hou, “Personal information protection in china: legal evolution and challenges,” 2020, china Law Review

    2020

  9. [15]

    Advancements in securing federated learning with ids: a comprehensive review of neural networks and feature engineering techniques for malicious client detection,

    N. Latif, W. Ma, and H. B. Ahmad, “Advancements in securing federated learning with ids: a comprehensive review of neural networks and feature engineering techniques for malicious client detection,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 58, no. 3, p. 91, 2025

    2025

  10. [16]

    Feddetect: A novel privacy-preserving federated learning framework for energy theft detection in smart grid,

    M. Wen, R. Xie, K. Lu, L. Wang, and K. Zhang, “Feddetect: A novel privacy-preserving federated learning framework for energy theft detection in smart grid,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 6069–6080, 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    A federated learning framework for detecting false data injection attacks in solar farms,

    L. Zhao, J. Li, Q. Li, and F. Li, “A federated learning framework for detecting false data injection attacks in solar farms,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 2496–2501, 2021

    2021

  12. [18]

    Novel evasion attacks against adversarial training defense for smart grid federated learning,

    A. H. Bondok, M. Mahmoud, M. M. Badr, M. M. Fouda, M. Abdallah, and M. Alsabaan, “Novel evasion attacks against adversarial training defense for smart grid federated learning,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 112 953–112 972, 2023

    2023

  13. [19]

    Investigation of the robustness of xai-based federated learning against adversarial attacks for smart grid false data detection,

    I. Elgarhy, M. M. Badr, M. Mahmoud, J. Ni, M. Alsabaan, and T. Alshawi, “Investigation of the robustness of xai-based federated learning against adversarial attacks for smart grid false data detection,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2025

    2025

  14. [20]

    Incentive edge-based federated learning for false data injection attack detection on power grid state estimation: A novel mechanism design approach,

    W.-T. Lin, G. Chen, and Y . Huang, “Incentive edge-based federated learning for false data injection attack detection on power grid state estimation: A novel mechanism design approach,” Applied energy, vol. 314, p. 118828, 2022

    2022

  15. [21]

    Detection of false data injection attacks in distribution networks: A vertical federated learning approach,

    M. Kesici, B. Pal, and G. Yang, “Detection of false data injection attacks in distribution networks: A vertical federated learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 5952–5964, 2024

    2024

  16. [22]

    An efficient privacy- enhancing cross-silo federated learning and applications for false data injection attack detection in smart grids,

    H.-Y . Tran, J. Hu, X. Yin, and H. R. Pota, “An efficient privacy- enhancing cross-silo federated learning and applications for false data injection attack detection in smart grids,” IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Forensics and Security , vol. 18, pp. 2538–2552, 2023

    2023

  17. [23]

    Federated learning-based distributed localization of false data injection attacks on smart grids,

    C. Kec ¸eci, K. R. Davis, and E. Serpedin, “Federated learning-based distributed localization of false data injection attacks on smart grids,” IEEE Systems Journal , 2025

    2025

  18. [24]

    Federated learning for cyber physical systems: a comprehensive survey,

    M. Quan and P. Pathirana, “Federated learning for cyber physical systems: a comprehensive survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.04873

    2025 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Sustainable and lightweight defense framework for resource constraint federated learning assisted smart grids against adversarial attacks,

    A. Shabbir, H. U. Manzoor, K. Arshad, K. Assaleh, Z. Halim, and A. Zoha, “Sustainable and lightweight defense framework for resource constraint federated learning assisted smart grids against adversarial attacks,” Authorea Preprints, 2024

    2024

  20. [26]

    Deep learning for cybersecurity in smart grids: Review and perspectives,

    J. Ruan, G. Liang, J. Zhao, H. Zhao, J. Qiu, F. Wen, and Z. Y . Dong, “Deep learning for cybersecurity in smart grids: Review and perspectives,” Energy Conversion and Economics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 233– 251, 2023

    2023

  21. [27]

    Fedwoa: A federated learning model that uses the whale optimization algorithm for renewable energy prediction,

    V . Chifu, T. Cioara, C. Anitiei, C. Pop, and I. Anghel, “Fedwoa: A federated learning model that uses the whale optimization algorithm for renewable energy prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10337 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Federated learning for privacy-preserving smart grid data analysis,

    L. Wang, J. Xu, and Z. Sun, “Federated learning for privacy-preserving smart grid data analysis,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–30, 2022

    2022

  23. [29]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ Co...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,” in Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems , I. Dhillon, D. Papailiopoulos, and V . Sze, Eds., vol. 2, 2020, pp. 429–

    2020

  25. [33]

    Tackling the objective inconsistency problem in heterogeneous federated optimiza- tion,

    J. Wang, Q. Liu, H. Liang, G. Joshi, and H. V . Poor, “Tackling the objective inconsistency problem in heterogeneous federated optimiza- tion,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 7611–7623, 2020

    2020

  26. [450]

    Available: https://proceedings.mlsys.org/paper files/ paper/2020/file/1f5fe83998a09396ebe6477d9475ba0c-Paper.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlsys.org/paper files/ paper/2020/file/1f5fe83998a09396ebe6477d9475ba0c-Paper.pdf

    2020

  27. [2021]

    Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3467981

    [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3467981

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.