AdaptoNet: Modular Foundation-Adaptive Neural Networks for Cyber-Physical Attack Detection in Power Grids

Anissa Elias; Hui Lin; Jennifer Rogers; Yan (Lindsay) Sun

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

AdaptoNet: Modular Foundation-Adaptive Neural Networks for Cyber-Physical Attack Detection in Power Grids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 AdaptoNet: a frozen foundational module plus a mask-conditioned adapter restores line-outage detection under data-denial attacks.

desk verdict A useful empirical paper with a genuine design claim that is left untested: the modular split's contribution is never isolated from simply giving the network the mask. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01375 v1 pith:ED4M7NC3 submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CR

Anissa Elias , Jennifer Rogers , Hui Lin , Yan (Lindsay) Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CR

keywords cyber-physicalattackspowergridsecuritylineoutagedetectionconditionalneuralnetworksmissingdatamodulardeeplearningdenialadaptive

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

AdaptoNet claims that a modular network can keep detecting transmission-line outages during a coordinated cyber-physical attack in which an adversary blocks measurements in the same region where it trips a line. The paper shows that standard CNN-based line outage detection collapses from 89–99% F1 to below 12% under such data denial. AdaptoNet pairs a frozen foundational module trained on complete measurements with a trainable adaptive module that receives a binary mask of which measurements are missing, recovering F1 to 81–92.5% without retraining the foundational module. The result matters because attackers can realistically deny data via link-flooding, and existing imputation-based defenses assume missing-data randomness that coordinated attacks violate.

What carries the argument

The measurement-availability mask $m$, a binary vector indicating which bus and line measurements are blocked, is the conditioning signal that lets the adaptive module distinguish 'missing' from 'anomalous'. The architecture splits the detector into a frozen foundational module $F_\theta(z)$ trained on complete data and a trainable adaptive module $A_\delta(I_\phi(z, m))$ whose output is fused with the foundational features by $O_\pi$; the frozen module guarantees learned physics is preserved while the adaptive module learns attack-specific corrections.

What would settle it

Run an evaluation where the test-time mask is deliberately perturbed (e.g., flip 10% of mask bits or present a mask that is shifted by one region) while keeping everything else fixed; if AdaptoNet's F1 falls back toward the 12% baseline, the central role of exact mask knowledge is confirmed, and the claim of resilience to data denial would need to be qualified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conditioning on measurement availability, rather than imputing missing values or retraining the whole model, is enough to restore line-outage detection under in-region data-denial attacks. The paper demonstrates that a frozen network trained only on complete data retains general knowledge of grid physics, and that a separately trained adaptive module can learn corrections from the discrepancy between expected and observed signals, guided by a binary mask of which measurements are missing. Across four IEEE test systems with up to 20% of buses blocked, AdaptoNet recovers F1 from below 12% to 81–92.5%, approaching but not matching the 89–99% complete-data baseline, wit

Load-bearing premise

The defender knows exactly which measurements have been blocked (the availability mask) at test time; if the mask is wrong, spoofed, or only partially known, the conditioning mechanism cannot be fed correctly and the reported recovery is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, grid operators can maintain high outage-detection accuracy under data-denial attacks without retraining existing complete-data models, by adding a mask-conditioned adapter to a frozen detector.
Because the foundational module is frozen, third-party pretrained models (e.g., deep-learning-based state estimators) could serve as the foundation, enabling plug-and-play adaptation.
The mask mechanism extends beyond binary blocking: floating-point masks carrying trust scores or imputation confidence could handle spoofed or partially corrupted data.
The approach points toward a general recipe for making data-driven cyber-physical system monitors robust to missing data when missingness is intentional and spatially correlated, not random.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mask can be estimated from communication-layer metadata (dropped SCADA or PMU reports), AdaptoNet could be deployed without explicit attacker labels; the paper leaves this estimation step untested.
The reported per-region thresholds mean the numbers are an upper bound for a practical single-threshold deployment; the paper acknowledges this, but the gap for a fixed global threshold is not quantified.
The same modular conditioning may transfer to other cyber-physical domains where sensors are blocked in a region while a physical fault is induced, since the mechanism is agnostic to the specific physics learned by the foundation module.
A testable extension: train the adaptive module with masks that contain small errors to measure how gracefully performance degrades, since real-world availability masks may be noisy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read AdaptoNet. The paper does something real: it shows that a CNN for line-outage detection collapses under in-region data-denial attacks, and that a ControlNet-style frozen-foundation-plus-adaptive-module architecture, conditioned on a binary availability mask, recovers F1 from below 12% to 81–92.5% across four IEEE test systems. The evaluation is built on realistic load profiles, AC-OPF simulation, multiple region sizes, and latency figures on GPU/CPU. That is a solid piece of engineering.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test note flags, and it is load-bearing. Every comparison is against a zero-filled CNN without a mask. There is no ablation that trains a single network with the mask as an input channel, no fine-tuned variant where the foundational weights are not frozen, and no imputation baseline (mean filling, GAIN, or the Bayesian regression of [21]). So the central architectural claim—that the modular split preserves learned physics while adapting—is asserted but never tested. For all the results show, the entire gain could come from conditioning on the mask alone, or simply from retraining the adaptive weights on the attack distribution. That is not a minor omission; it is the difference between a new architecture and input augmentation.

Other caveats are properly acknowledged but still limit the strength of the results: per-region thresholds tuned on validation are an upper bound; 5–31% of lines are excluded as non-convergent; and there are no error bars across the six evaluation cases. I also think the mask assumption (defender knows exactly what is blocked) is stated clearly, and the paper is right that in practice operators can derive this from the communication layer—so I would not call that fatal, just a boundary condition.

Honest engagement with prior work, a clearly stated threat model, and explicit limitations make this a serious paper. It deserves a real referee, but the referee should insist on the missing ablations and at least one non-mask-conditioned baseline before the central claim can be believed.

For your purposes: if you work on ML for grid security, worth a look; I would bring it to a reading group only if someone is specifically interested in mask conditioning for CPS.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses coordinated cyber-physical attacks in which an adversary blocks measurements in a region while physically tripping a line inside that region (in-region attacks). The authors propose AdaptoNet, a modular architecture consisting of a frozen foundational module trained on complete measurement data and a trainable adaptive module that receives the partially observed measurements together with a binary availability mask. The output is a multi-label line-status vector. The method is evaluated on four IEEE test systems (30-, 39-, 57-, and 118-bus) under Type A (10% of buses denied) and Type B (20% denied) attack regions. The authors report that F1 recovers from below 12% to 81.2–92.5%, approaching the 89–99% complete-data baseline, with inference latencies supporting real-time deployment.

Significance. If the reported improvement is indeed attributable to the modular frozen-foundation design, AdaptoNet would be a practical and novel contribution to power-grid attack detection. The threat model is realistic and clearly stated, the four-system evaluation is useful, and the latency measurements address deployment concerns. The paper also honestly acknowledges several limitations, including the per-region threshold selection and the exclusion of non-convergent branches. However, the central architectural claim—that freezing the foundational module preserves learned physics and that modular separation is what drives the recovery—is not yet supported by the experiments, because no ablation isolates the effect of the mask input or of retraining. The strong reported numbers are therefore suggestive but not conclusive.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-B and Section V-B (Figs. 4–7, Table II)] The central claim is that splitting a frozen foundational module from a trainable adaptive module preserves learned grid physics and enables adaptation to missing data. Yet all reported comparisons are against a zero-filled CNN without a mask. There is no ablation against (a) the same network trained end-to-end with the mask concatenated as an extra input channel, (b) a variant in which the foundational weights are fine-tuned rather than frozen, or (c) a standard imputation baseline such as mean-filling or the Bayesian regression of [21]. Without these, the observed F1 recovery from below 12% to above 81% could be due solely to conditioning on the mask or to retraining on attack data, rather than to the modular/frozen design. This is load-bearing because the paper's primary contribution is the modular architecture, not the mask input itself.
[Section V-B and Table I] The evaluation protocol has three caveats that jointly affect the headline 'approaching baseline' claim. First, per-region decision thresholds are tuned on a validation split, and the text acknowledges this is an upper bound relative to a single-threshold deployment; however, no results are reported with a single conservative threshold, which is the realistic operating mode when the attacked region is unknown. Second, the class mask in Table I excludes 5–31% of lines as non-convergent, and these lines are omitted from both loss and metrics; the 57-bus system excludes 31% of lines, which may materially inflate the reported F1. Third, there are no error bars or per-case distributions across the six evaluation cases, so it is unclear whether the averages are stable or dominated by particular cases/regions. The authors should report single-threshold results, sensitivity to the non-convergent
[Section IV-B] The design assumes the defender knows exactly which measurements are blocked: 'we also assume that we know the data denial region and the corresponding blocked data, which determines the mask variable.' The availability mask is the primary conditioning signal. In practice, the mask may be uncertain, partially wrong, or spoofed (e.g., delayed SCADA/PMU reports or an adversary replaying old data). The paper mentions extensions with fractional mask values but provides no robustness analysis to mask errors. Since the reported F1 recovery depends on feeding the correct mask, the authors should evaluate performance when the mask is imperfect, e.g., with a few mislabeled entries or a coarse block-level mask. Without this, the practical applicability of the method is not established.

minor comments (5)

[Table III] For the 57-bus and 118-bus systems under CPU 1-thread, the reported end-to-end time is smaller than the forward time (3.18 vs 3.20 ms and 54.68 vs 54.90 ms), which is impossible if end-to-end includes the forward pass. This suggests a measurement or reporting error and should be corrected.
[Section V-A3 and Table I] The non-convergent branch list is reported only as percentages. Since the class mask removes lines from both training loss and evaluation, it would be helpful to state whether any non-convergent branches appear in the attacked regions and whether the per-region F1 averages are recomputed over a consistent line set across systems.
[Section VI] The conclusion says 'investigate AdaptoNet's generation to different neural network infrastructures'; 'generation' should be 'generalization'.
[General] No code, data, or trained model is made available. Given the synthetic evaluation pipeline (MATPOWER plus ACTIVSg load profiles), releasing the generation and training code would substantially increase reproducibility and is strongly encouraged.
[Section V-B] The text says results are 'averaged across all testable regions and six evaluation cases' but never states the number of regions per system or per attack type. Reporting this count and the per-region variance would help the reader interpret the mean F1 values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AdaptoNet's claims rest on external simulations and held-out data, not on fitted constants or self-citation reductions.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The central results in Table II and Figs. 4–7 are empirical F1/accuracy measurements on held-out test splits generated from an external MATPOWER/ACTIVSg2000 pipeline (Section V-A). The adaptive module is trained on in-region attack data with the availability mask and tested on held-out in-region attack data; this is standard supervised evaluation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The mask is an assumed-known input feature, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this assumption in Section IV-B ('we also assume that we know the data denial region and the corresponding blocked data, which determines the mask variable'), which is a deployment limitation rather than a circularity. The self-citations [13] and [18] appear only as prior baseline architecture and motivation, not as evidence validating the modular design; the reported gains are measured against that baseline and external simulations. Equations (1) and (2) simply define the network and are not equivalent by construction to the reported F1 values. The absence of an ablation isolating mask conditioning or the frozen-foundation design is a significant experimental-design weakness, but it is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circularity of the kind this review targets. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the feasibility of the attack model, the availability of an accurate mask, and the validity of simulated measurements. The main hand-tuned choices are the per-region thresholds and the non-convergent branch exclusions, both of which directly shape the reported F1 values.

free parameters (3)

Per-region decision thresholds = varies by region, selected to maximize F1 on a held-out validation split
Reported test metrics use per-region thresholds, acknowledged by the authors as an upper bound relative to a single conservative deployment threshold (Section V-B).
Class mask for non-convergent branches = excludes 7, 11, 25, and 9 lines for 30-, 39-, 57-, and 118-bus systems respectively
Lines that cause AC-OPF non-convergence are removed from both loss computation and metric evaluation, affecting the reported F1 (Section V-A3, Table I).
Region sizes for Type A and Type B attacks = 10% and 20% of buses
The two region sizes are hand-chosen to define the attack scenarios; they are not fitted to data but constrain the evaluation.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Measurement blocking is achievable via link-flooding attacks
Section III assumption (i), citing [32]; the feasibility of the entire attack model depends on this.
domain assumption Line outage is achievable remotely on intelligent electronic devices
Section III assumption (ii); if remote tripping is not feasible, the physical disruption component of the threat model is moot.
domain assumption The defender knows the availability mask (which measurements are blocked) at test time
Section IV-B states 'we also assume that we know the data denial region and the corresponding blocked data, which determines the mask variable.' If this fails, the conditioning mechanism cannot be applied.
domain assumption In-region attacks are representative of the threat
Section III focuses on in-region attacks as low-capability high-impact; generalizability to out-region or random attacks is stated as future work.
domain assumption Non-convergent branches can be excluded from evaluation safely
Section V-A3 argues these contingencies would trigger protective relay action and are less relevant to data-driven detection; large fractions (up to 31%) are excluded.
domain assumption Simulated AC-OPF measurements with ACTIVSg2000 load profiles are representative of real grid operation
Section V-A describes the pipeline using MATPOWER and normalized load profiles; the practical transfer to field data is not validated.
standard math Backpropagation and standard stochastic gradient training are reliable
The paper relies on standard neural network training procedures without formal guarantees.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AdaptoNet: Modular Foundation-Adaptive Neural Networks for Cyber-Physical Attack Detection in Power Grids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ED4M7NC3

@misc{pith2026260801375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AdaptoNet: Modular Foundation-Adaptive Neural Networks for Cyber-Physical Attack Detection in Power Grids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ED4M7NC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01375}
}

read the original abstract

Cyber attacks on the power grid combine physical disruptions with compromised data to destabilize cyber-physical systems. We demonstrate that data denial attacks, where adversaries block measurements in a targeted region while triggering a line outage, reduce detection performance by more than 86\%, rendering standard data-driven methods ineffective. We propose AdaptoNet, a modular neural network that adapts to measurement availability through conditional controls. AdaptoNet pairs a frozen foundational module trained on complete data with a trainable adaptive module, conditioned on a binary measurement-availability vector, enabling the model to distinguish between denied and anomalous data without retraining the foundational module. Evaluated across four IEEE test systems (30-, 39-, 57-, and 118-bus) under in-region attacks blocking up to 20% of measurements, AdaptoNet recovers F1 from below 12\% to above 81\%, an approximate sevenfold improvement approaching the 89%-99% baseline with complete measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01375 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** AdaptoNet architecture with foundational and adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Two-stage training procedure for AdaptoNet. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Type A F1-score comparison. AdaptoNet recovers F1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Type B accuracy comparison. Under larger attack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[21]

Line failure detection after a cyber-physical attack on the grid using bayesian regression,

S. Soltan, P. Mittal, and H. V . Poor, “Line failure detection after a cyber-physical attack on the grid using bayesian regression,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 3758–3768, 2019

work page 2019
[1]

Smart grid cyber-physical attack and defense: A review,

H. Zhang, B. Liu, and H. Wu, “Smart grid cyber-physical attack and defense: A review,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 29 641–29 659, 2021

2021
[2]

Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,

R. M. Lee, M. J. Assante, and T. Conway, “Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,” SANS and E-ISAC, Tech. Rep., 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Sandworm disrupts power in Ukraine using a novel attack against operational technology,

K. Proska, J. Wolfram, J. Wilson, D. Black, K. Lunden, D. K. Zafra, N. Brubaker, T. Mclellan, and C. Sistrunk, “Sandworm disrupts power in Ukraine using a novel attack against operational technology,”Mandiant, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Missforest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data,

D. J. Stekhoven and P. B ¨uhlmann, “Missforest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data,”Bioinformatics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 112–118, 01 2012

work page 2012
[5]

GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets,

J. Yoon, J. Jordon, and M. van der Schaar, “GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 80, Jul 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” in2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 3813–3824

2023
[7]

V AEs in the presence of missing data,

M. Collier, A. Nazabal, and C. K. I. Williams, “V AEs in the presence of missing data,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.05301

arXiv 2021

Show all 34 references

[8]

Pseudo-measurement enhancement in power distribution systems,

T. Xu, K. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Qiao, Z. Zhao, H. Zhu, and K. Sun, “Pseudo-measurement enhancement in power distribution systems,” in 2025 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2025

2025
[9]

A learning-to-infer method for real- time power grid multi-line outage identification,

Y . Zhao, J. Chen, and H. V . Poor, “A learning-to-infer method for real- time power grid multi-line outage identification,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 555–564, 2020

2020
[10]

Line outage detection using phasor angle measurements,

J. E. Tate and T. J. Overbye, “Line outage detection using phasor angle measurements,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1644–1652, 2008

2008
[11]

Dynamic detection of transmission line outages using hidden markov models,

Q. Huang, L. Shao, and N. Li, “Dynamic detection of transmission line outages using hidden markov models,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2026–2033, 2016

2026
[12]

Compressive system identification for multiple line outage detection in smart grids,

M. Babakmehr, F. Harirchi, A. Al-Durra, S. M. Muyeen, and M. G. Sim˜oes, “Compressive system identification for multiple line outage detection in smart grids,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 4462–4473, 2019

2019
[13]

Learning from future: Prediction-based data augmentation to enhance power grids fault detection,

J. Rogers, W. Danilczyk, H. Lin, and Y . L. Sun, “Learning from future: Prediction-based data augmentation to enhance power grids fault detection,” in2023 IEEE 11th International Conference on Smart Energy Grid Engineering (SEGE), 2023

2023
[14]

Hybrid CNN-LSTM approaches for identification of type and locations of transmission line faults,

A. Moradzadeh, H. Teimourzadeh, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, and K. Pourhossein, “Hybrid CNN-LSTM approaches for identification of type and locations of transmission line faults,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 135, p. 107563, 2022

2022
[15]

Design of a cost-effective deep convolutional neural network–based scheme for diagnosing faults in smart grids,

H. Hassani, M. Farajzadeh-Zanjani, R. Razavi-Far, M. Saif, and V . Palade, “Design of a cost-effective deep convolutional neural network–based scheme for diagnosing faults in smart grids,” in2019 18th IEEE International Conference On Machine Learning And Appli- cations (ICMLA)...

2019
[16]

Distribution grid fault classifica- tion and localization using convolutional neural networks,

M. Zhou, N. Kazemi, and P. Musilek, “Distribution grid fault classifica- tion and localization using convolutional neural networks,”Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 24, 2024

2024
[17]

Transfer learning for fault diagnosis of transmission lines,

F. M. Shakiba, M. Shojaee, S. M. Azizi, and M. Zhou, “Transfer learning for fault diagnosis of transmission lines,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08018

2022 arXiv
[18]

Prediction-based data augmentation for smart grid line outage detection,

J. Rogers, H. Lin, and Y . L. Sun, “Prediction-based data augmentation for smart grid line outage detection,” in2024 56th North American Power Symposium (NAPS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

2024
[19]

Detection of power grid disturbances and cyber-attacks based on machine learning,

D. Wang, X. Wang, Y . Zhang, and L. Jin, “Detection of power grid disturbances and cyber-attacks based on machine learning,”Journal of Information Security and Applications, vol. 46, pp. 42–52, 2019

2019
[20]

A tri-level optimization model to mitigate coordinated attacks on electric power systems in a cyber-physical environment,

K. Lai, M. Illindala, and K. Subramaniam, “A tri-level optimization model to mitigate coordinated attacks on electric power systems in a cyber-physical environment,”Applied Energy, vol. 235, 2019

2019
[22]

Line failure detection from pmu data after a joint cyber-physical attack,

M. J. Hossain and M. Rahnamay-Naeini, “Line failure detection from pmu data after a joint cyber-physical attack,” in2019 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2019, pp. 1–5

2019
[23]

React to cyber attacks on power grids,

S. Soltan, M. Yannakakis, and G. Zussman, “React to cyber attacks on power grids,”IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 459–473, 2019

2019
[24]

Fault localization and state estimation of power grid under parallel cyber-physical attacks,

J. Ren, K. Zhao, G. Zhang, X. Liu, C. Zhai, and G. Xiao, “Fault localization and state estimation of power grid under parallel cyber-physical attacks,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05797

2025
[25]

Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control,

A. Hertz, R. Mokady, J. Tenenbaum, K. Aberman, Y . Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

2023
[26]

Improving hurricane power outage prediction models through the inclusion of local environmental factors,

D. B. McRoberts, S. M. Quiring, and S. D. Guikema, “Improving hurricane power outage prediction models through the inclusion of local environmental factors,”Risk Analysis, vol. 38, no. 12, 2018

2018
[27]

Conditioning neural networks: A case study of electricity load forecasting,

H. Hosseini, A. Hooshmand, and R. Sharma, “Conditioning neural networks: A case study of electricity load forecasting,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2018

2018
[28]

Safety- critical cyber-physical attacks: Analysis, detection, and mitigation,

H. Lin, H. Alemzadeh, D. Chen, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer, “Safety- critical cyber-physical attacks: Analysis, detection, and mitigation,” in Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security (HotSoS), 2016

2016
[29]

False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids,

Y . Liu, P. Ning, and M. K. Reiter, “False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids,”ACM Transactions on Informa- tion and System Security (TISSEC), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2011

2011
[30]

Runtime semantic security analysis to detect and mitigate control- related attacks in power grids,

H. Lin, A. Slagell, Z. T. Kalbarczyk, P. W. Sauer, and R. K. Iyer, “Runtime semantic security analysis to detect and mitigate control- related attacks in power grids,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 163–178, 2018

2018
[31]

Malicious data attacks on the smart grid,

O. Kosut, L. Jia, R. J. Thomas, and L. Tong, “Malicious data attacks on the smart grid,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 645–658, 2011

2011
[32]

Detecting target-area link-flooding ddos attacks using traffic analysis and supervised learning,

M. Rezazad, M. R. Brust, M. Akbari, P. Bouvry, and N.-M. Cheung, “Detecting target-area link-flooding ddos attacks using traffic analysis and supervised learning,” inAdvances in Information and Communica- tion Networks. Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 180–202

2019
[33]

MAT- POWER: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,

R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-S ´anchez, and R. J. Thomas, “MAT- POWER: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2011

2011
[34]

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, 2017

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [21]

Line failure detection after a cyber-physical attack on the grid using bayesian regression,

S. Soltan, P. Mittal, and H. V . Poor, “Line failure detection after a cyber-physical attack on the grid using bayesian regression,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 3758–3768, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Smart grid cyber-physical attack and defense: A review,

H. Zhang, B. Liu, and H. Wu, “Smart grid cyber-physical attack and defense: A review,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 29 641–29 659, 2021

2021

[3] [2]

Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,

R. M. Lee, M. J. Assante, and T. Conway, “Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,” SANS and E-ISAC, Tech. Rep., 2016

work page 2016

[4] [3]

Sandworm disrupts power in Ukraine using a novel attack against operational technology,

K. Proska, J. Wolfram, J. Wilson, D. Black, K. Lunden, D. K. Zafra, N. Brubaker, T. Mclellan, and C. Sistrunk, “Sandworm disrupts power in Ukraine using a novel attack against operational technology,”Mandiant, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [4]

Missforest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data,

D. J. Stekhoven and P. B ¨uhlmann, “Missforest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data,”Bioinformatics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 112–118, 01 2012

work page 2012

[6] [5]

GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets,

J. Yoon, J. Jordon, and M. van der Schaar, “GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 80, Jul 2018

work page 2018

[7] [6]

Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” in2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 3813–3824

2023

[8] [7]

V AEs in the presence of missing data,

M. Collier, A. Nazabal, and C. K. I. Williams, “V AEs in the presence of missing data,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.05301

arXiv 2021