Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 175 references

Technical Report on Resilient and Secure Large-Scale Energy Internet Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resilience in the Energy Internet is cross-dimensional and decision-aware: the report formalizes a multidimensional index whose coupling term amplifies degradation beyond additive sums, and a gate that screens recovery actions for storage…

desk verdict A competent, broad TF survey whose headline MDRI coupling result is an arithmetic artifact of an assumed product form, not empirical evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12916 v1 pith:7RKBVAQ3 submitted 2026-08-13 eess.SY cs.CRcs.SY

Ioannis Zografopoulos , Karen Largman , Isaac Ortega Romero , S M Zia Ur Rashid , Yexiang Chen , George Fragkos , Charalambos Konstantinou , Subhash Lakshminarayana
show 6 more authors
Juan Ospina Airin Rahman Suman Rath Vivek Kumar Singh Mucun Sun Wei Sun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.CRcs.SY
keywords EnergyInternetgridresiliencemultidimensionalindexcross-dimensionalcouplingcyber-physicalsecuritystorage-integrateddecision-awareactiongateelectricitypriceforecasting
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 report argues that the Energy Internet — where electricity, information flows, and market signals are tightly coupled — has a resilience problem that cannot be assessed one dimension at a time. Its central formal claim is a multidimensional resilience index in which total degradation equals the average of physical, operational, and digital-cyber sub-indices plus a coupling term that multiplies all three, so simultaneous compromise across dimensions amplifies impact beyond the additive sum. In a two-scenario 39-bus case study, the report finds that a coordinated multi-vector attack raises endogenous degradation roughly eight-fold over a single-vector baseline, with about one-third of the coupled scenario's endogenous degradation attributed to the interaction term; winter climate stress and regulatory gaps add a further 84%. The report also proposes a decision-aware action gate for storage-integrated systems: candidate recovery actions must pass storage-adequacy, information-integrity, and physical-security-margin checks before execution. If these claims hold, grid operators should screen recovery actions for energy readiness, information trust, and feasibility rather than measuring resilience only after the event.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multidimensional resilience index built on Eq. (29): M(S_i; γ_i) equals the additive mean (1/3)∑ D_{k,i} plus the coupling product γ_i ∏ D_{k,i}. The product term is the mechanism that carries the report's central claim: because it is multiplicative, it collapses when any single dimension is undamaged and is maximal only when physical, operational, and cyber degradation coincide. The complementary mechanism is the decision-aware action gate, Eq. (16), which admits an action only if the Storage Adequacy Index clears a minimum, the Decision Integrity Gap stays within tolerance, and the physical security margin (instantiated as the steady-state security-region margin) is nonnegative. That gate converts resilience assessment from post-event outcome measurement into pre-action screening.

What would settle it

Run the multidimensional index on scenarios in which exactly two of the three endogenous dimensions are degraded while the third is intact: the product coupling predicts the interaction term is exactly zero, so M equals the additive mean. If measured system degradation exceeds that additive mean in such cases, or if a two-dimensional degradation exceeds the product of all three, the multiplicative form in Eq. (29) fails; a regression comparing additive, product, and threshold interaction terms on simulated attack outcomes would settle which form carries the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the report's core discovery is that resilience in Energy Internet systems is a cross-dimensional, decision-aware property rather than a single-number outcome. It defines the multidimensional resilience index MDRI = M(S_i; γ_i) ∏_{j∈k_ext} (1 + D_{j,i}), where M(S_i; γ_i)= (1/3)∑_{k∈{phy,op,cyb}} D_{k,i} + γ_i ∏_{k} D_{k,i}. The additive term records mean severity; the product term is the coupling mechanism: it vanishes if any one dimension is uncompromised and grows only when all three degrade, encoding cascading failure. In the case study, Scenario A (single-plant, additive regime, γ=0) gives MDRI = 0.132, while Scenario B (multi-vector, coupled regime, γ=1, with climatic and regulatory stress) gives MDRI = 1.940; the report's logarithmic decomposition attributes 77% of the increase to the endogenous core, mostly cross-dimensional coupling. Separate supporting studies show that the decision-aware gate's three conditions each matter: long-duration storage raises the resilience index from 79.5% to 96.0% and cuts restoration time from seven to two hours; energy-state-driven restoration raises the index from 54.2% to 65.2% and adds 12–15% served load; and a security-region margin shows restoration can become infeasible at a later stage even when stored energy remains.

Load-bearing premise

The report's coupling conclusion rests on the assumption that the interaction of physical, operational, and cyber degradation is multiplicative — so the amplification disappears whenever any one dimension is intact — and that the regime parameter γ can be assigned by scenario type rather than estimated from data; if the true interaction is additive, saturating, or threshold-based, the coupling-driven headline numbers collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators who use only post-event outcome metrics such as Resilience Index, unserved energy, avoided outage cost, or recovery time will miss degradation introduced by the decision process itself; pre-action screening for storage adequacy, information integrity, and physical feasibility closes that gap.
  • Installed storage capacity is not a resilience guarantee: the energy carried into the disturbance, the truthfulness of reported storage state, and inverter/network feasibility jointly decide whether a recovery action can actually be executed.
  • Long-duration storage — flow batteries and hydrogen — provides materially better blackout restoration than short-duration batteries in the report's unified co-optimization study, with hydrogen reaching 96.0% resilience and two-hour restoration versus 79.5% and seven hours without storage.
  • Using stored-energy state as a real-time supervisory signal improves restoration: energy-state-driven adaptive restoration raises the resilience index from 54.2% to 65.2% and restores 12–15% more cumulative load than a fixed sequence.
  • Physical feasibility can bind before energy runs out; security-region analysis shows a restoration trajectory can reach the feasibility boundary and become infeasible at the next pickup stage, so energy readiness alone cannot authorize an action.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The coupling term in Eq. (29) is a modeling assumption rather than an empirical finding: the 'about one-third coupling' result in Scenario B is an arithmetic consequence of choosing a product interaction and setting γ=1 for that scenario. A reader should treat the headline amplification as illustrative of the index definition, not as measured evidence about how real failures interact.
  • A testable design principle follows if the product form is right: keeping any single resilience dimension uncompromised suppresses the coupling term to zero, so defense-in-depth should focus on preventing complete degradation in any one dimension, not merely balancing degradation across dimensions.
  • The same decision-aware screening logic could be applied to market-layer actions: a dispatch or bidding action could be rejected when a forecast-integrity gap — an analog of the Decision Integrity Gap — exceeds tolerance, which would connect the report's price-forecasting discussion to its resilience gate.
  • The exogenous amplifiers (1 + D_clim)(1 + D_reg) are multiplicative by construction; whether real climate and regulatory stressors multiply rather than add to cyber-physical degradation is an empirical question the report does not test, and comparing restoration outcomes with and without those stressors under matched cyber-physical degradation would settle it.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This IEEE PES Task Force technical report surveys the security and resilience of large-scale Energy Internet (EI) systems across threat taxonomy, transmission/distribution modeling and control, storage-integrated decision-aware resilience, a multidimensional resilience index (MDRI), electricity price forecasting, adversarial AI risks, trustworthy AI for grid security, and graph-based attack-resilient routing. Its two main technical contributions are a decision-aware action gate (Eq. (16)) that screens recovery actions using storage adequacy (SAI), decision integrity gap (DIG), and physical security margin, and an MDRI (Eqs. (29)-(30)) that adds a product coupling term to the mean of physical, operational, and digital-cyber sub-indices, amplified by exogenous climatic and regulatory factors. The MDRI is exercised on a modified IEEE 39-bus system under two attack scenarios, and the report claims that cross-dimensional coupling accounts for about one-third of endogenous degradation in the multi-vector scenario and about 77% of the increase from Scenario A to Scenario B.

Significance. If taken as a survey, the report is broad, current, and useful: it consolidates a large literature, provides reproducible-style dynamic simulation results, and proposes a concrete, decision-oriented framework for storage-integrated resilience that is well motivated by cross-horizon energy coupling and cyber-physical state uncertainty. The action-gate idea (Eq. (16)) is a legitimate conceptual contribution that moves resilience assessment from post-event outcome measurement to pre-action screening. The MDRI, however, is presented with strong empirical claims that are not supported by the evidence in the manuscript: the multiplicative coupling form is assumed rather than derived or validated, the regime parameter is assigned by scenario type rather than estimated, and the case study is a single deterministic simulation. The significance of the report therefore hinges on the reader accepting the proposed index as a definitional tool; as an empirical validation of cross-dimensional coupling, the current evidence is insufficient.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.B, Eq. (29)] The coupling term Pi_i = product_k D_{k,i} is introduced as a definition, and the claim in Section 6.D that the coupling term accounts for approximately 33% of endogenous degradation in Scenario B follows by arithmetic from that definition and from the tabulated sub-index values. The report states that the formulation is 'based on the premise' that simultaneous cross-dimensional compromise creates additional degradation, but it provides no independent justification for the product form over alternative interactions such as additive, saturating, or threshold-based coupling. No dynamic-simulation evidence, data fit, or model-comparison analysis is given to show that the product form better explains the simulated R_loss or the response curves in Figs. 9-10. Please either supply such validation or explicitly reframe Eqs. (29)-(30) as a proposed metric and temper the corresponding empirical conclusions.
  2. [Section 6.D, Tables VII-VIII, Eq. (31)] The regime parameter gamma_i is assigned after the fact: Scenario A is classified as additive (gamma=0) and Scenario B as coupled (gamma=1) because all three sub-indices are high in Scenario B. Consequently, the A-to-B comparison cannot estimate the coupling effect; the label 'coupled' is applied precisely to the scenario in which the product is large. The log-decomposition in Eq. (31) then reports that 77% of the MDRI increase is explained by the endogenous core, but this is a direct consequence of including gamma_B * Pi_B = 0.349 in M_B while excluding the product from M_A. The statement that the increase is due to 'cross-dimensional coupling alone' is therefore circular with respect to the index definition. Please report results under alternative assignments of gamma (e.g., gamma=1 for both scenarios, or gamma=0 for Scenario B), or estimate gamma from data, and if the claim is only definitional, say so explicitly.
  3. [Section 6 case study, Eqs. (25)-(26)] The MDRI evaluation rests on a single deterministic simulation of one modified IEEE 39-bus model, with fixed thresholds (RoCoF_crit = 1.0 Hz/s, delta_crit = 0.05, Delta_f_crit = 2.0 Hz), fixed equal weights (omega_f = omega_s = 0.5, omega_cyj = 0.25), and only two hand-crafted scenarios. No error bars, Monte Carlo runs, or sensitivity analysis over these thresholds and weights is provided, so even the additive component values in Table VII are not shown to be robust to the many free parameters listed in the paper. At minimum, the authors should add a sensitivity study over the critical thresholds and weights and report the resulting range of MDRI values and coupling shares.
  4. [Section 6.B, Eq. (30)] The exogenous amplification factors (1 + D_{j,i}) for the climatic and regulatory dimensions are also assumed rather than derived. The report does not justify why these factors should enter multiplicatively on the endogenous core, nor how the specific normalizations in Eqs. (27)-(28) (e.g., the IEC 60076 and EN 1991-1-3 references in Section 6.D) relate to resilience degradation. Because the 23% exogenous share of the A-to-B increase in Eq. (31) depends on this assumed multiplicative form, the exogenous contribution is as definition-dependent as the coupling term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 8 caption and general typography] The caption of Fig. 8 contains a typo: 'V oltage' should be 'Voltage'. A number of other captions and body passages have spacing artifacts (e.g., 'V olt-V AR', 'T nD') that should be cleaned before publication.
  2. [Eq. (25) and Section 6.D notation] The notation for the normalized performance drop is inconsistent: Eq. (25) defines delta_phi_i, while Section 6.D writes delta_Phi_B; the symbols should be unified.
  3. [Tables II-IV and Section 5] Tables II, III, and IV appear to reproduce results from external references [66], [68], and [54]. The text should state clearly which results are newly generated for this report and which are summarized from prior work, since this distinction matters for the report's contribution claim.
  4. [Section 6.D decomposition sentence] The sentence stating that the endogenous core rises 'roughly 8 times' and the total MDRI rises 'approximately 15 times' is arithmetically consistent with Table VIII (1.054/0.132 ≈ 8.0; 1.940/0.132 ≈ 14.7), but the wording should clarify that this is a consequence of the chosen index form and the assigned regime parameters, not an empirically measured amplification.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The headline coupling result is built into the MDRI definition: Eq. (29)'s product term and scenario-assigned gamma produce the reported one-third and 77% coupling shares by arithmetic, so the claim that 'coupling matters' is not independently evidenced.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.B (Eq. (29)) and Section 6.D (Tables VII-VIII)]
    "Scenarios driven by a single disturbance vector are assigned to the additive regime (γi = 0) ... Scenarios where all endogenous dimensions are simultaneously compromised are assigned to the coupled regime (γi = 1), activating Πi and amplifying degradation beyond the additive baseline. ... By contrast, the simultaneous increase of all three sub-indices in Scenario B yields ΠB = 0.349, causing the coupling term to account for approximately 33%. This result highlights the importance of cross-dimensional interactions under coordinated disturbances."

    The coupling contribution Π_i is defined in Eq. (29) as the product of the same three endogenous sub-indices that also enter the additive mean, and γ_i is assigned by scenario class—γ=0 for the single-vector Scenario A, γ=1 for the multi-vector Scenario B. The reported 33% share of endogenous degradation and the 77% share of the A→B MDRI increase attributed to coupling are therefore arithmetic consequences of the definitional choices (product form plus γ assignment). The paper presents these shares as evidence ('This result highlights the importance of cross-dimensional interactions'), but no alternative interaction form is tested and no independent model selection is offered; the conclusion that ignoring coupling underestimates impact holds only by construction of the index.

full rationale

Most of this task-force report is a survey and is not circular: the threat taxonomies, forecasting review, AI-risk discussion, and graph-routing material are self-contained literature reviews. The specific circularity is confined to Section 6. The sub-indices D_phy, D_op, and D_cyb are obtained from simulations and scenario definitions, so their values are not circular. However, the paper's central quantitative claim—that cross-dimensional coupling materially increases resilience loss—is forced by Eq. (29), where the coupling term is defined as the product of the endogenous sub-indices, and by the regime parameter γ_i being set to 1 exactly for the multi-vector scenario and 0 for the single-vector scenario. The paper even opens the formulation with the premise it later 'validates': 'The proposed formulation is based on the premise that evaluating resilience dimensions independently underestimates system-wide impacts.' The 33% and 77% coupling shares are arithmetic readings of that definition, not empirical findings. Because the underlying simulation data are real but the headline coupling result reduces to the index definition, a score of 7 is appropriate rather than 10. No other load-bearing self-citation chain was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The report's numerical claims rest on hand-chosen weights, a scenario-dependent regime selector, and an assumed multiplicative interaction between resilience dimensions, rather than on externally validated benchmarks. The introduced metrics (MDRI, SAI, DIG, action gate) are proposed without independent falsifiable handles.

free parameters (7)
  • γ_i (resilience regime selector) = 0 for Scenario A, 1 for Scenario B
    Assigned by scenario classification; determines whether the product coupling term is active, materially changing MDRI.
  • Performance function weights ωf, ωs = 0.5, 0.5
    Hand-chosen equal weights for frequency deviation and coherency loss in Eq. (21).
  • Cyber dimension weights ωcy_j = 0.25 each
    Equal weights for observability, controllability, integrity, availability in Eq. (26).
  • Climatic weights w_temp, w_snow = 0.5, 0.5
    Equal weights for thermal and snow stressors in Eq. (27).
  • Critical thresholds RoCoFcrit, δcrit, Δfcrit_gen = 1.0 Hz/s, 0.05, 2.0 Hz
    Chosen from standards/engineering judgment; used to normalize the operational disruption index Eq. (25).
  • Action gate thresholds SAI_min, DIG_max, Δsec_min = unspecified
    The central proposed gate Eq. (16) is not operational without these thresholds, but they are never quantified in the report.
  • ESDAR coefficients κ0, κ1 = not given
    Parameters of Eq. (18) governing restoration pace from cited work [68]; needed to reproduce energy-state-driven restoration.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard AC power flow and state estimation models with BDD residual threshold τ (Eq. 1-5)
    Used to analyze FDIA and optimization vulnerabilities in Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-dimensional coupling takes multiplicative form Π_i = ∏ D_k,i in Eq. (29)
    The interaction term is asserted, not derived; the main MDRI conclusion follows from this form.
  • ad hoc to paper Exogenous dimensions amplify endogenous core multiplicatively via factors (1+D_j,i) in Eq. (30)
    Assumed functional form with no independent justification.
  • domain assumption Threat model: state-sponsored adversary with topology knowledge and OT access (ELECTRUM/Sandworm TTPs)
    Defines the attack scenarios in Section 6.C; results depend on this threat model.
  • domain assumption Center-of-inertia frequency and inter-generator frequency spread are sufficient indicators of physical stability impact
    Basis of the performance function φ(t) in Eq. (21); no evidence they uniquely capture collapse.
invented entities (4)
  • Multidimensional Resilience Index (MDRI)
    purpose: Composite metric to quantify degradation across physical, operational, cyber, climatic, and regulatory dimensions with coupling
    Introduced in Section 6.B; no external validation against real incidents or alternative indices.
  • Decision Integrity Gap (DIG)
    purpose: Quantifies the gap between reported and true storage state for cyber-to-decision distortion in Eq. (14)
    Proposed metric; thresholds and field validation absent.
  • Storage Adequacy Index (SAI)
    purpose: Measures usable stored energy relative to capacity in Eq. (13)
    Proposed metric; not benchmarked.
  • Decision-aware action gate
    purpose: Screens resilience actions on storage adequacy, information integrity, and physical feasibility before execution
    Central framework contribution of Section 5; no specified thresholds or independent test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Technical Report on Resilient and Secure Large-Scale Energy Internet Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7RKBVAQ3

@misc{pith2026260812916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Technical Report on Resilient and Secure Large-Scale Energy Internet Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7RKBVAQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12916}
}
read the original abstract

This IEEE PES Task Force report examines the security and resilience of large-scale Energy Internet (EI) systems, in which electricity, information, and market layers are tightly coupled through pervasive digitalization. The report characterizes the EI cyber-physical threat landscape and surveys detection, assurance, and mitigation techniques, presents modeling, control, and decision-making frameworks that capture cyber-physical interdependencies, including storage integration, multi-dimensional resilience, and electricity price forecasting, examines adversarial risks and trustworthy deployment of artificial intelligence, and introduces graph-based, attack-resilient information routing. The report closes with recommendations for research, standardization, and regulatory efforts needed to realize a resilient and secure large-scale EI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transmission and Distribution Interface Boundary. Data Exchange between TSOs and DSOs via Energy-Internet Hub. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decision-aware storage-integrated EI resilience framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross-horizon storage readiness and blackout resilience [66]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy-state-driven adaptive resilience operation [68]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Security-region-constrained restoration feasibility [54]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scenario A: PV generation and rotor speed response. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scenario B: PV generation and rotor speed response. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Voltage magnitudes and angle profiles across all 39 buses at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System performance function and phases for Scenario A. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: System performance function and phases for Scenario B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: EPF is embedded within ISO/RTO operational workflows and supports market participation, resource scheduling, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The EI fundamentally changes electricity price formation by introducing distributed intelligence, renewable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution from conventional point forecasting to resilient market intelligence. Future systems combine forecasting, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Capability-based AI architecture for resilient electricity price forecasting. AI methods should be selected according [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cyber-resilient EPF framework. Probabilistic forecasts provide both market predictions and anomaly indicators for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the impact of FGSM adversarial perturbations on conventional image classification and power system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: MTD Implementation for power systems (Fig. Source [146]). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Custom-made per-feature explainability & misclassification detection for LSTM Autoencoders. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: AI-driven cyber-physical security pillars for the Energy Internet-enabled grid. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Graph representation of a symbolic EI network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: An intrusion detector placed within a repeater. Host repeaters must have enough processing power to allow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Epsilon-greedy rerouting around a compromised network region. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

175 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rifkin,The third industrial revolution: how lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world

    J. Rifkin,The third industrial revolution: how lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. Macmillan, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    The future renewable electric energy delivery and management (freedm) system: the energy internet,

    A. Q. Huang, M. L. Crow, G. T. Heydt, J. P. Zheng, and S. J. Dale, “The future renewable electric energy delivery and management (freedm) system: the energy internet,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 133–148, 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    A survey on energy internet: Architecture, approach, and emerging technologies,

    K. Wang, J. Yu, Y . Yu, Y . Qian, D. Zeng, S. Guo, Y . Xiang, and J. Wu, “A survey on energy internet: Architecture, approach, and emerging technologies,” IEEE systems journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2403–2416, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Cyber-physical energy systems: Security threats, modeling, resources, metrics, and case studies,

    I. Zografopoulos, J. Ospina, X. Liu, and C. Konstantinou, “Cyber-physical energy systems: Security threats, modeling, resources, metrics, and case studies,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 29 775–29 818, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Guidelines for smart grid cybersecurity,

    V . Y . Pillitteri and T. L. Brewer, “Guidelines for smart grid cybersecurity,” 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Distributed energy resources cybersecurity outlook: Vulnerabilities, attacks, impacts, and mitigations,

    I. Zografopoulos, N. D. Hatziargyriou, and C. Konstantinou, “Distributed energy resources cybersecurity outlook: Vulnerabilities, attacks, impacts, and mitigations,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 6695–6709, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    E-isac: Analysis of the cyber attack on the ukrainian power grid,

    R. Lee, M. Assante, and T. Conway, “E-isac: Analysis of the cyber attack on the ukrainian power grid,”Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Report, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    Stealthy rootkit attacks on cyber-physical microgrids: Poster,

    S. Rath, I. Zografopoulos, and C. Konstantinou, “Stealthy rootkit attacks on cyber-physical microgrids: Poster,” inProceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems, 2021, pp. 294–295

    2021

Show all 175 references
  1. [9]

    Trustworthy cyberphysical energy systems: Time-delay attacks in a real-time co-simulation environment,

    J. Ospina, I. Zografopoulos, X. Liu, and C. Konstantinou, “Trustworthy cyberphysical energy systems: Time-delay attacks in a real-time co-simulation environment,” inProceedings of the 2020 Joint Workshop on CPS&IoT Security and Privacy, 2020, pp. 69–69

    2020

  2. [10]

    The grid: Stronger, bigger, smarter?: Presenting a conceptual framework of power system resilience,

    M. Panteli and P. Mancarella, “The grid: Stronger, bigger, smarter?: Presenting a conceptual framework of power system resilience,”IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 58–66, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    The grid: Stronger, bigger, smarter?: Presenting a conceptual framework of power system resilience,

    ——, “The grid: Stronger, bigger, smarter?: Presenting a conceptual framework of power system resilience,”IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 58–66, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Special session: Harness the power of ders for secure communications in electric energy systems,

    I. Zografopoulos, J. Ospina, and C. Konstantinou, “Special session: Harness the power of ders for secure communications in electric energy systems,” in2020 IEEE 38th International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD). IEEE, 2020, pp. 49–52

    2020

  5. [13]

    A resource allocation scheme for energy demand management in 6g-enabled smart grid,

    S. Islam, I. Zografopoulos, M. T. Hossain, S. Badsha, and C. Konstantinou, “A resource allocation scheme for energy demand management in 6g-enabled smart grid,” in2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  6. [15]

    Time series-based detection and impact analysis of firmware attacks in microgrids,

    I. Zografopoulos, A. P. Kuruvila, K. Basu, and C. Konstantinou, “Time series-based detection and impact analysis of firmware attacks in microgrids,” Energy Reports, vol. 8, pp. 11 221–11 234, 2022

    2022

  7. [16]

    Faster than real-time simulation: methods, tools, and applications,

    X. Liu, J. Ospina, I. Zografopoulos, A. Russel, and C. Konstantinou, “Faster than real-time simulation: methods, tools, and applications,” inProceedings of the 9th Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  8. [17]

    Mitigation of cyberattacks through battery storage for stable microgrid operation,

    I. Zografopoulos, P. Karamichailidis, A. T. Procopiou, F. Teng, G. C. Konstantopoulos, and C. Konstantinou, “Mitigation of cyberattacks through battery storage for stable microgrid operation,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Techn...

    2022

  9. [18]

    Event-triggered islanding in inverter-based grids,

    I. Zografopoulos and C. Konstantinou, “Event-triggered islanding in inverter-based grids,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 243, p. 111472, 2025

    2025

  10. [19]

    Cyber-physical interdependence for power system operation and control,

    I. Zografopoulos, A. Srivastava, C. Konstantinou, J. Zhao, A. A. Jahromi, A. Chawla, B. Nguyen, B. Siqi, C. Li, F. Tenget al., “Cyber-physical interdependence for power system operation and control,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 2554–2573, 2025

    2025

  11. [20]

    Experimental impact analysis of cyberattacks in power systems using digital real-time testbeds,

    K. Katuri, I. Zografopoulos, H. T. Nguyen, and C. Konstantinou, “Experimental impact analysis of cyberattacks in power systems using digital real-time testbeds,” in2023 IEEE Belgrade PowerTech. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  12. [21]

    Survey of machine learning methods for detecting false data injection attacks in power systems,

    A. Sayghe, Y . Hu, I. Zografopoulos, X. Liu, R. G. Dutta, Y . Jin, and C. Konstantinou, “Survey of machine learning methods for detecting false data injection attacks in power systems,”IET Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 581–595, 2020

    2020

  13. [22]

    {BlackIoT}:{IoT}botnet of high wattage devices can disrupt the power grid,

    S. Soltan, P. Mittal, and H. V . Poor, “{BlackIoT}:{IoT}botnet of high wattage devices can disrupt the power grid,” in27th USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 18), 2018, pp. 15–32

    2018

  14. [23]

    Survey of load-altering attacks against power grids: Attack impact, detection, and mitigation,

    S. Maleki, S. Pan, S. Lakshminarayana, and C. Konstantinou, “Survey of load-altering attacks against power grids: Attack impact, detection, and mitigation,”IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy, vol. 12, pp. 220–234, 2025

    2025

  15. [24]

    Load-altering attacks against power grids under covid-19 low-inertia conditions,

    S. Lakshminarayana, J. Ospina, and C. Konstantinou, “Load-altering attacks against power grids under covid-19 low-inertia conditions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10505, 2022. TECHNICAL REPORT ON RESILIENT AND SECURE LARGE-SCALE ENERGY INTERNET SYSTEMS, AUGUST 2026 47

    2022 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Modeling and impact assessment of load-altering attacks in tso-dso coordinated power systems,

    Y . Gao, S. Lakshminarayana, I.-I. Avramidis, and C. Konstantinou, “Modeling and impact assessment of load-altering attacks in tso-dso coordinated power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2026

    2026

  17. [26]

    Confirm: Detecting firmware modifications in embedded systems using hardware performance counters,

    X. Wang, C. Konstantinou, M. Maniatakos, and R. Karri, “Confirm: Detecting firmware modifications in embedded systems using hardware performance counters,” in2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD). IEEE, 2015, pp. 544–551

    2015

  18. [27]

    A reality check on sbom-based vulnerability management: An empirical study and a path forward,

    L. Zhou, M. Dacier, and C. Konstantinou, “A reality check on sbom-based vulnerability management: An empirical study and a path forward,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, 2026, pp. 255–268

    2026

  19. [28]

    Gps spoofing effect on phase angle monitoring and control in an rtds-based hardware-in-the-loop environment

    C. Konstantinou, M. Sazos, A. S. Musleh, A. Keliris, A. Al-Durra, and M. Maniatakos, “Gps spoofing effect on phase angle monitoring and control in an rtds-based hardware-in-the-loop environment.”

  20. [29]

    A cyber insurance policy for hedging against load-altering attacks and extreme load variations in distribution grids,

    S. Pan, Z. A. Alexakis, S. Lakshminarayana, and C. Konstantinou, “A cyber insurance policy for hedging against load-altering attacks and extreme load variations in distribution grids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025

    2025

  21. [30]

    When market prices drive the load: Modeling, grid-security analysis, and mitigation of data center workload scheduling,

    S. Pan, Z. A. Alexakis, and C. Konstantinou, “When market prices drive the load: Modeling, grid-security analysis, and mitigation of data center workload scheduling,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06924, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Relating cyberattacks for disrupting electricity spot markets and manipulation in energy derivative markets,

    T.-A. Ta, S. C.-K. Chau, and S. Lai, “Relating cyberattacks for disrupting electricity spot markets and manipulation in energy derivative markets,” in Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Sustainability Week, 2026, pp. 65–71

    2026

  23. [32]

    Sunspec modbus based smart inverter cyber-attack modeling and mitigation scheme,

    M. A. Aftab, S. S. Hussain, S. M. Farooq, M. S. Venkatraman, S. Ahmed, and C. Konstantinou, “Sunspec modbus based smart inverter cyber-attack modeling and mitigation scheme,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2025

    2025

  24. [33]

    Exploiting the inherent cyber resilience of inverter-dominated microgrids against pll attack,

    A. Kontou, M. Syed, A. Paspatis, Z. Feng, C. Konstantinou, and N. Hatziargyriou, “Exploiting the inherent cyber resilience of inverter-dominated microgrids against pll attack,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2025

    2025

  25. [34]

    Cpes-qsm: A quantitative method toward the secure operation of cyber–physical energy systems,

    J. Ospina, V . Venkataramanan, and C. Konstantinou, “Cpes-qsm: A quantitative method toward the secure operation of cyber–physical energy systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 7577–7590, 2022

    2022

  26. [35]

    Residual-based detection of attacks in cyber-physical inverter-based microgrids,

    A. Intriago, F. Liberati, N. D. Hatziargyriou, and C. Konstantinou, “Residual-based detection of attacks in cyber-physical inverter-based microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4020–4038, 2023

    2023

  27. [36]

    Robust power system state estimation using physics-informed neural networks,

    S. Falas, M. Asprou, C. Konstantinou, and M. K. Michael, “Robust power system state estimation using physics-informed neural networks,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 8057–8067, 2025

    2025

  28. [37]

    Toward a secure and resilient all-renewable energy grid for smart cities,

    C. Konstantinou, “Toward a secure and resilient all-renewable energy grid for smart cities,”IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 33–41, 2021

    2021

  29. [38]

    Digital twin of large-scale power systems: Fundamentals, challenges, and future prospects,

    A. Wigand, A. Abiri Jahromi, A. Bahador Javadi, A. Sharma, A. K. Srivastava, A. Mathur, A. Sakthivel, C. Konstantinou, C. Brosinsky, D. Esp´ın-Sarzosa, F. Ferdowsi, F. Arra˜no-Vargas, H. Hooshyar, J. Gabrielski, J. C. Morgan, K. Sheida, K.-B. Kwon, M. Alduhaymi, M. Touhiduzzam...

    2025

  30. [39]

    Derauth: a battery-based authentication scheme for distributed energy resources,

    I. Zografopoulos and C. Konstantinou, “Derauth: a battery-based authentication scheme for distributed energy resources,” in2020 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI). IEEE, 2020, pp. 560–567

    2020

  31. [40]

    Characteristics and risks of emerging large loads,

    L. L. T. Force, “Characteristics and risks of emerging large loads,”North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), White Paper, 2025

    2025

  32. [41]

    A public key based quantum secure digital signature scheme for securing iec 61850 r-goose and r-sv messages,

    S. S. Hussain, M. A. Aftab, S. M. Farooq, A. Latif, C. Konstantinou, and M. A. Abido, “A public key based quantum secure digital signature scheme for securing iec 61850 r-goose and r-sv messages,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 5135–5147, 2025

    2025

  33. [42]

    Eight charts that define 2025,

    A. Foyer, “Eight charts that define 2025,”Orennia Insights, January 2026. [Online]. Available: https://orennia.com/insights/eight-charts-that-define-2025

    2025

  34. [43]

    Transmission interconnection roadmap: Transforming bulk transmission interconnection by 2035,

    W. Gorman, J. Rand, J. Matevosyan, and F. Kahrl, “Transmission interconnection roadmap: Transforming bulk transmission interconnection by 2035,” 2024

    2024

  35. [44]

    Transmission interconnection roadmap, interconnection innovation e-xchange (i2x),

    U.S. Department of Energy, “Transmission interconnection roadmap, interconnection innovation e-xchange (i2x),” U.S. Department of Energy, Report, April 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/i2X%20Transmission%20Interconnection%20Roadmap.pdf

    2024

  36. [45]

    The future of resource adequacy: Solutions for clean, reliable, secure, and affordable electricity,

    ——, “The future of resource adequacy: Solutions for clean, reliable, secure, and affordable electricity,” U.S. Department of Energy, Tech. Rep., April

  37. [46]

    Participation of distributed energy resource aggregations in markets operated by regional transmission or- ganizations and independent system operators,

    “Participation of distributed energy resource aggregations in markets operated by regional transmission or- ganizations and independent system operators,” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/21/2020-20973/ participation-of-distributed-energy-resource-aggregations...

    2020

  38. [47]

    International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),IEC 61850: Communication Networks and Systems for Power Utility Automation, International Electrotechnical Commission

  39. [48]

    International electrotechnical commission,

    D. G. P. AS and A. Kaastad, “International electrotechnical commission,”Electric Engineers Magazine, pp. 29–34, 2007

    2007

  40. [49]

    Proposed amendments to the distribution system code: Sharing foundational static and telemetry data for distributed energy resources,

    Ontario Energy Board (OEB), “Proposed amendments to the distribution system code: Sharing foundational static and telemetry data for distributed energy resources,” https://engagewithus.oeb.ca/derandevchargingconnections/news feed/notice-of-proposed-amendments-to-the-distributi...

    2026

  41. [50]

    On the feasibility of market manipulation and energy storage arbitrage via load-altering attacks,

    J. Ospina, D. M. Fobes, and R. Bent, “On the feasibility of market manipulation and energy storage arbitrage via load-altering attacks,”Energies, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 1670, 2023

    2023

  42. [51]

    An integrated probabilistic forecasting and robust optimization method for ac-opf under high-penetration renewable energy,

    C. Wan, K. Zhang, C. Zhao, H. Liu, and P. Ju, “An integrated probabilistic forecasting and robust optimization method for ac-opf under high-penetration renewable energy,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 2025

    2025

  43. [52]

    What is energy internet? concepts, technologies, and future directions,

    H. M. Hussain, A. Narayanan, P. H. Nardelli, and Y . Yang, “What is energy internet? concepts, technologies, and future directions,”IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 183 127–183 145, 2020

    2020

  44. [53]

    A comprehensive review of energy internet: basic concept, operation and planning methods, and research prospects,

    Y . Cao, Q. Li, Y . Tan, Y . Li, Y . Chen, X. Shao, and Y . Zou, “A comprehensive review of energy internet: basic concept, operation and planning methods, and research prospects,”Journal of modern power systems and clean energy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 399–411, 2018

    2018

  45. [54]

    Metrics and quantification of operational and infrastructure resilience in power systems,

    M. Panteli, P. Mancarella, D. N. Trakas, E. Kyriakides, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Metrics and quantification of operational and infrastructure resilience in power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 4732–4742, 2017

    2017

  46. [55]

    Towards integrating cyber and physical security for a more reliable, resilient, and secure energy sector,

    R. Alcade, S. Chanoski, J. Gest, J. Harris, M. Khalghani, R. Hales, D. Sopata, and J. Stewart, “Towards integrating cyber and physical security for a more reliable, resilient, and secure energy sector,”IEEE Power Energy Society, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2022

    2022

  47. [56]

    Research on resilience of power systems under natural disasters—a review,

    Y . Wang, C. Chen, J. Wang, and R. Baldick, “Research on resilience of power systems under natural disasters—a review,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1604–1613, 2015

    2015

  48. [57]

    Comparing the role of long duration energy storage technologies for zero-carbon electricity systems,

    S. Ashfaq, I. El Myasse, D. Zhang, A. S. Musleh, B. Liu, A. A. Telba, U. Khaled, and M. M. Mahmoud, “Comparing the role of long duration energy storage technologies for zero-carbon electricity systems,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 73 169–73 186, 2024

    2024

  49. [58]

    Defining long duration energy storage,

    J. Twitchell, K. DeSomber, and D. Bhatnagar, “Defining long duration energy storage,”Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 60, p. 105787, 2023

    2023

  50. [59]

    Proactive rolling-horizon-based scheduling of hydrogen systems for resilient power grids,

    H. Haggi, W. Sun, J. M. Fenton, and P. Brooker, “Proactive rolling-horizon-based scheduling of hydrogen systems for resilient power grids,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 1737–1746, 2022

    2022

  51. [60]

    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 Information and System Security (TISSEC), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2011

    2011

  52. [61]

    Challenges and opportunities in cyber-physical security of highly der- penetrated power systems,

    A. Rahman, X. Gao, J. Xie, I. Alvarez-Fernandez, H. Haggi, and W. Sun, “Challenges and opportunities in cyber-physical security of highly der- penetrated power systems,” in2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5. TECHNICAL REPORT ON RESILI...

    2022

  53. [62]

    Cyber threat susceptibility assessment of hydrogen infrastructure,

    A. Rahman, W. Sun, and H. Haggi, “Cyber threat susceptibility assessment of hydrogen infrastructure,” in2025 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  54. [63]

    Review of methodology and best practice of power system restoration plan,

    Y . Fan, N. Chen, Y . Zhao, X. Ding, R. Zhang, and X.-P. Zhang, “Review of methodology and best practice of power system restoration plan,”Energy Internet, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 123–140, 2024

    2024

  55. [64]

    Security region of inverter-interfaced power systems: Existence, expansion, and application,

    J. Hou, C. Hu, S. Lei, L. Liang, and Y . Hou, “Security region of inverter-interfaced power systems: Existence, expansion, and application,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 192, p. 114222, 2024

    2024

  56. [65]

    Overcurrent limiting in grid-forming inverters: A comprehensive review and discussion,

    N. Baeckeland, D. Chatterjee, M. Lu, B. Johnson, and G.-S. Seo, “Overcurrent limiting in grid-forming inverters: A comprehensive review and discussion,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 14 493–14 517, 2024

    2024

  57. [66]

    Bridging market efficiency and system resilience: Unified multi-service operation of long-duration energy storage in decarbonized power systems,

    A. Rahman and W. Sun, “Bridging market efficiency and system resilience: Unified multi-service operation of long-duration energy storage in decarbonized power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 2026

    2026

  58. [67]

    Resilience enhancement strategies for power distribution network based on hydrogen storage and hydrogen vehicle,

    P. Xie, R. Zhao, Y . Chen, Y . Yang, Q. Yang, Y . Lin, and G. Li, “Resilience enhancement strategies for power distribution network based on hydrogen storage and hydrogen vehicle,”IET Energy Systems Integration, vol. 6, pp. 789–798, 2024

    2024

  59. [68]

    Energy-aware resilience: An energy-state-driven restoration for hydrogen-integrated power systems,

    A. Rahman, M. M. Rahman, and W. Sun, “Energy-aware resilience: An energy-state-driven restoration for hydrogen-integrated power systems,” inProc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet. (PESGM), Montr ´eal, QC, Canada, 2026, pp. 1–5

    2026

  60. [69]

    On the resilience of modern power systems: A comprehensive review from the cyber-physical perspective,

    L. Xu, Q. Guo, Y . Sheng, S. Muyeen, and H. Sun, “On the resilience of modern power systems: A comprehensive review from the cyber-physical perspective,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 152, p. 111642, 2021

    2021

  61. [70]

    Demand response-integrated investment and operational planning of renewable and sustainable energy systems considering forecast uncertainties: A systematic review,

    S. Mohseni, A. C. Brent, S. Kelly, and W. N. Browne, “Demand response-integrated investment and operational planning of renewable and sustainable energy systems considering forecast uncertainties: A systematic review,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 158, p. 112095, 2022

    2022

  62. [71]

    Urban wind energy with resilience approach for sustainable cities in tropical regions: A review,

    A. V . D´ıaz and I. H. Moya, “Urban wind energy with resilience approach for sustainable cities in tropical regions: A review,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 199, p. 114525, 2024

    2024

  63. [72]

    Resilience assessment and planning in power distribution systems: Past and future considerations,

    S. Paul, A. Poudyal, S. Poudel, A. Dubey, and Z. Wang, “Resilience assessment and planning in power distribution systems: Past and future considerations,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 189, p. 113991, 2024

    2024

  64. [73]

    Renewable and integrated energy system resilience–a review and generic resilience index,

    S. W. Monie, M. Gustafsson, S. ¨Onnered, and K. Guruvita, “Renewable and integrated energy system resilience–a review and generic resilience index,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 215, p. 115554, 2025

    2025

  65. [74]

    Quic-trip: A triple-redundant journey toward secure substation communications,

    J. D. de Hoz Diegoet al., “Quic-trip: A triple-redundant journey toward secure substation communications,” in2026 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm). IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–7

    2026

  66. [75]

    Let’s get quic securing ip-based industrial protocols by proxying,

    J. D. de Hoz Diego, I. Zografopoulos, and A. Jurcut, “Let’s get quic securing ip-based industrial protocols by proxying,” in2026 IEEE 23rd Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–4

    2026

  67. [76]

    Power systems and microgrids resilience enhancement strategies: A review,

    T. E. K. Zidane, Z. Ab Muis, W. S. Ho, Y . Zahraoui, A. S. Aziz, C.-L. Su, S. Mekhilef, and P. E. Campana, “Power systems and microgrids resilience enhancement strategies: A review,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 207, p. 114953, 2025

    2025

  68. [77]

    Security assessment and impact analysis of cyberattacks in integrated t&d power systems,

    I. Zografopoulos, C. Konstantinou, N. G. Tsoutsos, D. Zhu, and R. Broadwater, “Security assessment and impact analysis of cyberattacks in integrated t&d power systems,” inProceedings of the 9th workshop on modeling and simulation of cyber-physical energy systems, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  69. [78]

    Impact assessment of cyberattacks in inverter-based microgrids,

    K. Topallaj, C. McKerrell, S. Ramanathan, and I. Zografopoulos, “Impact assessment of cyberattacks in inverter-based microgrids,” in2025 10th IEEE Workshop on the Electronic Grid (eGRID). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  70. [79]

    Digital twins for hazard-resilient power grids: A systematic review and roadmap,

    M. Cavus, J. Jiang, A. Allahham, A. G. Rameshrao, E. Scullion, B. D. Malamud, H. Sun, and W. P. Ng, “Digital twins for hazard-resilient power grids: A systematic review and roadmap,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 235, p. 116947, 2026

    2026

  71. [80]

    A multi-stage resilience analysis framework of critical infrastructure systems based on component importance measures,

    F. Wang, J. Tian, J. Ling, Z. Chen, and Z. Xu, “A multi-stage resilience analysis framework of critical infrastructure systems based on component importance measures,”Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 256, p. 110720, 2025

    2025

  72. [81]

    Methods for analysis and quantification of power system resilience,

    A. M. Stankovi ´c, K. L. Tomsovic, F. De Caro, M. Braun, J. H. Chow, N. ˇCukalevski, I. Dobson, J. Eto, B. Fink, C. Hachmannet al., “Methods for analysis and quantification of power system resilience,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 4774–4787, 2022

    2022

  73. [82]

    Resilience assessment and improvement for cyber-physical power systems under typhoon disasters,

    B. Ti, G. Li, M. Zhou, and J. Wang, “Resilience assessment and improvement for cyber-physical power systems under typhoon disasters,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 783–794, 2021

    2021

  74. [83]

    Models, metrics, and their formulas for typical electric power system resilience events,

    I. Dobson, “Models, metrics, and their formulas for typical electric power system resilience events,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5949–5952, 2023

    2023

  75. [84]

    Ranking the impact of interdependencies on power system resilience using stratified sampling of utility data,

    M. R. Kelly-Gorham, P. D. Hines, and I. Dobson, “Ranking the impact of interdependencies on power system resilience using stratified sampling of utility data,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1251–1262, 2023

    2023

  76. [85]

    Power systems’ resilience: A comprehensive literature review,

    J. N. Chivunga, Z. Lin, and R. Blanchard, “Power systems’ resilience: A comprehensive literature review,”Energies, vol. 16, no. 21, p. 7256, 2023

    2023

  77. [86]

    Resilience enhancement of active distribution networks under extreme disaster scenarios: A comprehensive overview of fault location strategies,

    L. Tang, Y . Han, A. S. Zalhaf, S. Zhou, P. Yang, C. Wang, and T. Huang, “Resilience enhancement of active distribution networks under extreme disaster scenarios: A comprehensive overview of fault location strategies,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 189, p. 113898, 2024

    2024

  78. [87]

    Secure operation of a multi-energy system: A comprehensive review,

    Y . Cao and Y . Xu, “Secure operation of a multi-energy system: A comprehensive review,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 211, p. 115312, 2025

    2025

  79. [88]

    Resilience revisited: A multidimensional framework derived from realistic attack scenarios,

    I. O. Romero and I. Zografopoulos, “Resilience revisited: A multidimensional framework derived from realistic attack scenarios,” in2026 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm). IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–6

    2026

  80. [89]

    Multidimensional resilience for electrical power systems: Systematic review, integrated index, and validation under real-world cyber-physical attack scenarios,

    ——, “Multidimensional resilience for electrical power systems: Systematic review, integrated index, and validation under real-world cyber-physical attack scenarios,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08062, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Energy sector incident report—29 december 2025,

    C. Polska, “Energy sector incident report—29 december 2025,”CERT Polska: Warsaw, Poland, 2026

    2025

  82. [91]

    Sandworm behind cyberattack on poland’s power grid in late 2025,

    ESET Research, “Sandworm behind cyberattack on poland’s power grid in late 2025,” https://www.welivesecurity.com/en/eset-research/ eset-research-sandworm-cyberattack-poland-power-grid-late-2025/, 2026

    2025

  83. [92]

    Electrum: Cyber attack on poland’s electric system 2025,

    Dragos Inc., “Electrum: Cyber attack on poland’s electric system 2025,” https://www.dragos.com/blog/ poland-power-grid-attack-electrum-targets-distributed-energy-2025/, 2026

    2025

  84. [93]

    Smart transmission grid: Vision and framework,

    F. Li, W. Qiao, H. Sun, H. Wan, J. Wang, Y . Xia, Z. Xu, and P. Zhang, “Smart transmission grid: Vision and framework,”IEEE transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 168–177, 2010

    2010

  85. [94]

    Security-constrained bi-level economic dispatch model for integrated natural gas and electricity systems considering wind power and power-to-gas process,

    G. Li, R. Zhang, T. Jiang, H. Chen, L. Bai, and X. Li, “Security-constrained bi-level economic dispatch model for integrated natural gas and electricity systems considering wind power and power-to-gas process,”Applied energy, vol. 194, pp. 696–704, 2017

    2017

  86. [95]

    Contract networks for electric power transmission,

    W. W. Hogan, “Contract networks for electric power transmission,”Journal of regulatory economics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 211–242, 1992

    1992

  87. [96]

    Forecasting day-ahead electricity prices: A review of state-of-the-art algorithms, best practices and an open-access benchmark,

    J. Lago, G. Marcjasz, B. De Schutter, and R. Weron, “Forecasting day-ahead electricity prices: A review of state-of-the-art algorithms, best practices and an open-access benchmark,”Applied Energy, vol. 293, p. 116983, 2021

    2021

  88. [97]

    Day-ahead electricity price forecasting using the wavelet transform and arima models,

    A. J. Conejo, M. A. Plazas, R. Espinola, and A. B. Molina, “Day-ahead electricity price forecasting using the wavelet transform and arima models,” IEEE transactions on power systems, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1035–1042, 2005

    2005

  89. [98]

    Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting,

    B. Lim, S. ¨O. Arık, N. Loeff, and T. Pfister, “Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting,”International journal of forecasting, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1748–1764, 2021

    2021

  90. [99]

    Connecting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks,

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, G. Long, J. Jiang, X. Chang, and C. Zhang, “Connecting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2020, pp. 753–763

    2020

  91. [100]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” ininternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2016, pp. 1050–1059

    2016

  92. [101]

    Short-term electricity price forecasting with constrained regressors,

    M. Sun, L. Zhang, and Y . Gao, “Short-term electricity price forecasting with constrained regressors,” in2026 IEEE Green Technologies Conference (GreenTech). IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–5. TECHNICAL REPORT ON RESILIENT AND SECURE LARGE-SCALE ENERGY INTERNET SYSTEMS, AUGUST 2026 49

    2026

  93. [102]

    Deep learning-based probabilistic anomaly detection for solar forecasting under cyberattacks,

    M. Sun, L. He, and J. Zhang, “Deep learning-based probabilistic anomaly detection for solar forecasting under cyberattacks,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 137, p. 107752, 2022

    2022

  94. [103]

    Energy & ancillary services market operations,

    P. Manual, “Energy & ancillary services market operations,”PJM Interconnection, LLC Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), USA. Tech. Rep. Manual, vol. 11, 2012

    2012

  95. [104]

    Electricity market design for the prosumer era,

    Y . Parag and B. K. Sovacool, “Electricity market design for the prosumer era,”Nature energy, vol. 1, no. 4, p. 16032, 2016

    2016

  96. [105]

    The market value of variable renewables: The effect of solar wind power variability on their relative price,

    L. Hirth, “The market value of variable renewables: The effect of solar wind power variability on their relative price,”Energy economics, vol. 38, pp. 218–236, 2013

    2013

  97. [106]

    The february 2021 cold weather outages in texas and the south central united states,

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), “The february 2021 cold weather outages in texas and the south central united states,” FERC and NERC, Tech. Rep., November 2021

    2021

  98. [107]

    Winter storm elliott: Energy emergency alert lessons learned,

    S. Chinthavali and V . Tansakul, “Winter storm elliott: Energy emergency alert lessons learned,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), Tech. Rep., 2024

    2024

  99. [108]

    Electricity price forecasting: A review of the state-of-the-art with a look into the future,

    R. Weron, “Electricity price forecasting: A review of the state-of-the-art with a look into the future,”International journal of forecasting, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1030–1081, 2014

    2014

  100. [109]

    Probabilistic energy forecasting: Global energy forecasting competition 2014 and beyond,

    T. Hong, P. Pinson, S. Fan, H. Zareipour, A. Troccoli, and R. J. Hyndman, “Probabilistic energy forecasting: Global energy forecasting competition 2014 and beyond,” pp. 896–913, 2016

    2014

  101. [110]

    Electricity price forecasting with high penetration of renewable energy using attention-based lstm network trained by crisscross optimization,

    A. Meng, P. Wang, G. Zhai, C. Zeng, S. Chen, X. Yang, and H. Yin, “Electricity price forecasting with high penetration of renewable energy using attention-based lstm network trained by crisscross optimization,”Energy, vol. 254, p. 124212, 2022

    2022

  102. [111]

    Enhanced transformer-bilstm deep learning framework for day-ahead energy price forecasting,

    A. A. A. Khan, M. H. Ullah, R. Tabassum, and M. F. Kabir, “Enhanced transformer-bilstm deep learning framework for day-ahead energy price forecasting,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 2025

    2025

  103. [112]

    Enhanced transformer-bilstm deep learning framework for day-ahead energy price forecasting,

    ——, “Enhanced transformer-bilstm deep learning framework for day-ahead energy price forecasting,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 2025

    2025

  104. [113]

    Forecasting day-ahead electricity prices with spatial dependence,

    Y . Yang, J. Guo, Y . Li, and J. Zhou, “Forecasting day-ahead electricity prices with spatial dependence,”International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1255–1270, 2024

    2024

  105. [114]

    Grid physics-informed and time-adaptive stacked learning for real-time electricity price forecasting: a short-term to mid-term approach,

    Y . Yi, X. Chen, Z. Tian, and Y . Zhang, “Grid physics-informed and time-adaptive stacked learning for real-time electricity price forecasting: a short-term to mid-term approach,”Applied Energy, vol. 410, p. 127502, 2026

    2026

  106. [115]

    Data-driven probabilistic anomaly detection for electricity market under cyber attacks,

    M. Sun, L. Ren, and N.-y. Chiang, “Data-driven probabilistic anomaly detection for electricity market under cyber attacks,” in2021 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 4586–4591

    2021

  107. [116]

    Deep learning-based forecasting approach in smart grids with microclustering and bidirectional lstm network,

    H. Jahangir, H. Tayarani, S. S. Gougheri, M. A. Golkar, A. Ahmadian, and A. Elkamel, “Deep learning-based forecasting approach in smart grids with microclustering and bidirectional lstm network,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 8298–8309, 2020

    2020

  108. [117]

    A robust electricity price forecasting framework based on heteroscedastic temporal convolutional network,

    W. Shi and Y . F. Wang, “A robust electricity price forecasting framework based on heteroscedastic temporal convolutional network,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 161, p. 110177, 2024

    2024

  109. [118]

    Attention mechanism multi-size depthwise convolutional long short-term memory neural network for forecasting real-time electricity prices,

    H. Xu, F. Hu, X. Liang, and M. A. Gunmi, “Attention mechanism multi-size depthwise convolutional long short-term memory neural network for forecasting real-time electricity prices,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6277–6289, 2024

    2024

  110. [119]

    Day-ahead electricity price forecasting method integrating multi-scale hypergraph features and dual-layer transformer,

    L. Yang, Y . An, G. Zhang, T. Xie, and M. Liu, “Day-ahead electricity price forecasting method integrating multi-scale hypergraph features and dual-layer transformer,”Applied Energy, vol. 407, p. 127396, 2026

    2026

  111. [120]

    Marginal loss modeling in lmp calculation,

    E. Litvinov, T. Zheng, G. Rosenwald, and P. Shamsollahi, “Marginal loss modeling in lmp calculation,”IEEE transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 880–888, 2004

    2004

  112. [121]

    Electricity price spike forecasting via multivariate adaptive visibility graph neural networks,

    T. Bao, N. Mahdavi, C. Mccarthy, and D. Rezazadegan, “Electricity price spike forecasting via multivariate adaptive visibility graph neural networks,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 255, p. 112695, 2026

    2026

  113. [122]

    Probabilistic solar power forecasting based on weather scenario generation,

    M. Sun, C. Feng, and J. Zhang, “Probabilistic solar power forecasting based on weather scenario generation,”Applied Energy, vol. 266, p. 114823, 2020

    2020

  114. [123]

    Medium-term probabilistic forecasting of electricity prices: A hybrid approach,

    A. Bello, D. W. Bunn, J. Reneses, and A. Mu ˜noz, “Medium-term probabilistic forecasting of electricity prices: A hybrid approach,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 334–343, 2016

    2016

  115. [124]

    Multi-distribution fusion based bayesian deep neural network for short-term probabilistic electricity price forecasting,

    Z. Shao, G. Zhu, Y . Han, J. Zha, C. Yang, and F. Li, “Multi-distribution fusion based bayesian deep neural network for short-term probabilistic electricity price forecasting,”Applied Energy, vol. 401, p. 126712, 2025

    2025

  116. [125]

    Analyzing uncertainty quantification in statistical and deep learning models for probabilistic electricity price forecasting,

    A. Lebedev, A. Das, S. Pappert, and S. Schl ¨uter, “Analyzing uncertainty quantification in statistical and deep learning models for probabilistic electricity price forecasting,”IEEE Access, 2026

    2026

  117. [126]

    Probabilistic simulation of electricity price scenarios using conditional generative adversarial networks,

    V . Walter and A. Wagner, “Probabilistic simulation of electricity price scenarios using conditional generative adversarial networks,”Energy and AI, vol. 18, p. 100422, 2024

    2024

  118. [127]

    Conformal prediction for electricity price forecasting in the day-ahead and real-time balancing market,

    C. O’Connor, M. Bahloul, R. Rossi, S. Prestwich, and A. Visentin, “Conformal prediction for electricity price forecasting in the day-ahead and real-time balancing market,”Energy and AI, vol. 21, p. 100571, 2025

    2025

  119. [128]

    Cyber–physical system security for the electric power grid,

    S. Sridhar, A. Hahn, and M. Govindarasu, “Cyber–physical system security for the electric power grid,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 210–224, 2011

    2011

  120. [129]

    Gridfm: A physics-informed foundation model for multi-task energy forecasting using real-time nyiso data,

    A. Sayghe, M. A. Mousa, S. Batiyah, A. Husawi, and M. Almuwallad, “Gridfm: A physics-informed foundation model for multi-task energy forecasting using real-time nyiso data,”Energies, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 357, 2026

    2026

  121. [130]

    Deep learning for electricity price forecasting: A review of day-ahead, intraday, and balancing electricity markets,

    R. Yu, D. W. Bunn, J. Lin, J. Stiasny, F. Leimgruber, T. Esterl, Y . Tao, L. Qi, Y . Chen, W. Wanget al., “Deep learning for electricity price forecasting: A review of day-ahead, intraday, and balancing electricity markets,” in2026 22nd International Conference on the European...

    2026

  122. [131]

    Poweragent: A road map toward agentic intelligence in power systems: Foundation model, model context protocol, and workflow,

    Q. Zhang and L. Xie, “Poweragent: A road map toward agentic intelligence in power systems: Foundation model, model context protocol, and workflow,” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 93–101, 2025

    2025

  123. [132]

    Assessing time series foundation models for probabilistic electricity price forecasting: Toward a unified benchmark,

    G. Marchesi, A. Ballarino, and A. Brusaferri, “Assessing time series foundation models for probabilistic electricity price forecasting: Toward a unified benchmark,”Energies, vol. 18, no. 23, p. 6269, 2025

    2025

  124. [133]

    Day-ahead electricity price forecasting for volatile markets using foundation models with regularization strategy,

    K. Ponyuenyong, P. Tu, J. W. Tan, W. S. Cheong, J. N. S. Ling, and L. Jiang, “Day-ahead electricity price forecasting for volatile markets using foundation models with regularization strategy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05430, 2026

    2026

  125. [134]

    Joint adversarial example and false data injection attacks for state estimation in power systems,

    J. Tian, B. Wang, Z. Wang, K. Cao, J. Li, and M. Ozay, “Joint adversarial example and false data injection attacks for state estimation in power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 13 699–13 713, 2021

    2021

  126. [135]

    Applying large language models to power systems: Potential security threats,

    J. Ruan, G. Liang, H. Zhao, G. Liu, X. Sun, J. Qiu, Z. Xu, F. Wen, and Z. Y . Dong, “Applying large language models to power systems: Potential security threats,”IEEE transactions on smart grid, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 3333–3336, 2024

    2024

  127. [136]

    Risks of practicing large language models in smart grid: Threat modeling and validation,

    J. Li, Y . Yang, and J. Sun, “Risks of practicing large language models in smart grid: Threat modeling and validation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06237, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  128. [137]

    Adversarial examples on power systems state estimation,

    A. Sayghe, O. M. Anubi, and C. Konstantinou, “Adversarial examples on power systems state estimation,” in2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT), 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  129. [138]

    Is machine learning in power systems vulnerable?

    Y . Chen, Y . Tan, and D. Deka, “Is machine learning in power systems vulnerable?” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  130. [139]

    Analysis of adversarial false data injection attacks in power systems,

    Y . Chen, T. Xu, G. Zheng, and S. Lakshminarayana, “Analysis of adversarial false data injection attacks in power systems,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  131. [140]

    Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples,

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, and C. Szegedy, “Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572, 2014. TECHNICAL REPORT ON RESILIENT AND SECURE LARGE-SCALE ENERGY INTERNET SYSTEMS, AUGUST 2026 50

    2014 arXiv

  132. [141]

    Adversarial machine learning at scale,

    A. Kurakin, I. Goodfellow, and S. Bengio, “Adversarial machine learning at scale,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01236, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  133. [142]

    Towards adversarial-resilient deep neural networks for false data injection attack detection in power grids,

    J. Li, Y . Yang, J. S. Sun, K. Tomsovic, and H. Qi, “Towards adversarial-resilient deep neural networks for false data injection attack detection in power grids,” in2023 32nd International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–10

    2023

  134. [143]

    Towards evaluating the robustness of neural networks,

    N. Carlini and D. Wagner, “Towards evaluating the robustness of neural networks,” in2017 ieee symposium on security and privacy (sp). Ieee, 2017, pp. 39–57

    2017

  135. [144]

    Survey of moving target defense in power grids: Design principles, tradeoffs, and future directions,

    Y . Chen, C. Konstantinou, D. Mashima, A. K. Srivastava, and S. Lakshminarayana, “Survey of moving target defense in power grids: Design principles, tradeoffs, and future directions,”IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy, vol. 12, pp. 455–469, 2025

    2025

  136. [145]

    Cost-benefit analysis of moving-target defense in power grids,

    S. Lakshminarayana and D. K. Yau, “Cost-benefit analysis of moving-target defense in power grids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1152–1163, 2020

    2020

  137. [146]

    Moving target defense against adversarial false data injection attacks in power grids,

    Y . Chen, S. Lakshminarayana, and H. V . Poor, “Moving target defense against adversarial false data injection attacks in power grids,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 14, pp. 26 315–26 327, 2025

    2025

  138. [147]

    Review of information exchange mechanisms in large interconnected electricity networks,

    N. Zhao, Z. Wu, H. Lu, and G. Xie, “Review of information exchange mechanisms in large interconnected electricity networks,” inThe Purple Mountain Forum on Smart Grid Protection and Control. Springer, 2024, pp. 830–839

    2024

  139. [148]

    A review of anomaly detection strategies to detect threats to cyber-physical systems,

    N. Jeffrey, Q. Tan, and J. R. Villar, “A review of anomaly detection strategies to detect threats to cyber-physical systems,”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 15, p. 3283, 2023

    2023

  140. [149]

    A review of cyber-attack methods in cyber-physical power system,

    F. Li, X. Yan, Y . Xie, Z. Sang, and X. Yuan, “A review of cyber-attack methods in cyber-physical power system,” in2019 IEEE 8th International Conference on Advanced Power System Automation and Protection (APAP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1335–1339

    2019

  141. [150]

    Dereliction: A cybersecurity vulnerability assessment methodology for distributed energy resources,

    J. G. Hurtado, C. B. Jones, J. Johnson, and B. J. Wright, “Dereliction: A cybersecurity vulnerability assessment methodology for distributed energy resources,” Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States), Tech. Rep., 2024

    2024

  142. [151]

    Transactive energy system: a review of cyber-physical infrastructure and optimal scheduling,

    J. Yang, Y . Li, Y . Cao, Y . Tan, and C. Rehtanz, “Transactive energy system: a review of cyber-physical infrastructure and optimal scheduling,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 173–179, 2020

    2020

  143. [152]

    Intrusion detection for power grid: a review: R. dasgupta et al

    R. Dasgupta, M. Pramanik, P. Mitra, and D. R. Chowdhury, “Intrusion detection for power grid: a review: R. dasgupta et al.”International Journal of Information Security, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1317–1329, 2024

    2024

  144. [153]

    Effective detection of cyber attack in a cyber-physical power grid system,

    U. Otokwala, A. Petrovski, and H. Kalutarage, “Effective detection of cyber attack in a cyber-physical power grid system,” inFuture of Information and Communication Conference. Springer, 2021, pp. 812–829

    2021

  145. [154]

    A comparison study of feature extraction and data fusion techniques for improving cyber-physical situational awareness,

    L. Blakely, G. Fragkos, S. Hossain-McKenzie, C. Goes, A. Summers, K. A. Haque, and K. Davis, “A comparison study of feature extraction and data fusion techniques for improving cyber-physical situational awareness,” in2024 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and E...

    2024

  146. [155]

    Cyber-physical data fusion & threat detection with lstm-based autoencoders in the grid,

    G. Fragkos, L. Blakely, S. Hossain-McKenzie, A. Summers, and C. Goes, “Cyber-physical data fusion & threat detection with lstm-based autoencoders in the grid,” in2024 IEEE Kansas Power and Energy Conference (KPEC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  147. [156]

    Artificial intelligence and physics-based anomaly detection in the smart grid: A survey,

    G. B. Gaggero, P. Girdinio, and M. Marchese, “Artificial intelligence and physics-based anomaly detection in the smart grid: A survey,”IEEe Access, vol. 13, pp. 23 597–23 606, 2025

    2025

  148. [157]

    Graphllm-cps: Llm node embeddings for anomaly detection in cyber-physical systems,

    G. Fragkos, S. Wright, and C. B. Jones, “Graphllm-cps: Llm node embeddings for anomaly detection in cyber-physical systems,” in2025 IEEE 30th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–7

    2025

  149. [158]

    Explainable ai-informed misclassification identification for ml-driven anomaly detection,

    S. Wright, G. Fragkos, and T. Oentung, “Explainable ai-informed misclassification identification for ml-driven anomaly detection,” in2026 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC). IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–6

    2026

  150. [159]

    Xai-based accurate anomaly detector that is robust against black-box evasion attacks for the smart grid,

    I. Elgarhy, M. M. Badr, M. Mahmoud, M. Alsabaan, T. Alshawi, and M. Alsaqhan, “Xai-based accurate anomaly detector that is robust against black-box evasion attacks for the smart grid,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 9897, 2024

    2024

  151. [160]

    Explainable ai for transparent ml-driven cyber-physical security in the power grid,

    G. Fragkos, T. Oentung, S. Wright, and N. Sharan, “Explainable ai for transparent ml-driven cyber-physical security in the power grid,” in2026 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D). IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–5

    2026

  152. [161]

    Physics-informed state estimation model with controllable uncertainty: Enhancing resilience against false data injection attacks in power systems,

    S. Wu, Q. Wang, Z. Zhang, J. Hu, Y . Ye, Y . Tang, and W. He, “Physics-informed state estimation model with controllable uncertainty: Enhancing resilience against false data injection attacks in power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2026

    2026

  153. [162]

    Security management of cyber physical control systems using nist sp 800-82r2,

    A. A. Jillepalli, F. T. Sheldon, D. C. de Leon, M. Haney, and R. K. Abercrombie, “Security management of cyber physical control systems using nist sp 800-82r2,” in2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1864–1870

    2017

  154. [163]

    The iso/iec 27001 information security management standard: literature review and theory-based research agenda,

    G. Culot, G. Nassimbeni, M. Podrecca, and M. Sartor, “The iso/iec 27001 information security management standard: literature review and theory-based research agenda,”The TQM Journal, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 76–105, 2021

    2021

  155. [164]

    A protocol-agnostic der intrusion detection system using an ieee 1547-enabled digital twin,

    T. Oentung, G. Fragkos, J. Johnson, and K. Sreekumar, “A protocol-agnostic der intrusion detection system using an ieee 1547-enabled digital twin,” in2024 Resilience Week (RWS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  156. [165]

    Decentralised reinforcement learning for dynamic cyberattack response in microgrid networks,

    S. Rath and V . K. Singh, “Decentralised reinforcement learning for dynamic cyberattack response in microgrid networks,”IET Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory & Applications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. e70058, 2026

    2026

  157. [166]

    A cyber-secure distributed control architecture for autonomous ac microgrid,

    S. Rath, D. Pal, P. S. Sharma, and B. K. Panigrahi, “A cyber-secure distributed control architecture for autonomous ac microgrid,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 3324–3335, 2020

    2020

  158. [167]

    Behind closed doors: Process-level rootkit attacks in cyber-physical microgrid systems,

    S. Rath, I. Zografopoulos, P. P. Vergara, V . C. Nikolaidis, and C. Konstantinou, “Behind closed doors: Process-level rootkit attacks in cyber-physical microgrid systems,” in2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  159. [168]

    Self-healing secure blockchain framework in microgrids,

    S. Rath, L. D. Nguyen, S. Sahoo, and P. Popovski, “Self-healing secure blockchain framework in microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 4729–4740, 2023

    2023

  160. [169]

    Detection of anomalous data in dc microgrids using lstm stacked autoencoders,

    A. Takiddin, S. Rath, M. Ismail, and S. Sahoo, “Detection of anomalous data in dc microgrids using lstm stacked autoencoders,”IEEE Syst. J., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 6097–6106, 2022

    2022

  161. [170]

    Demystifying arm trustzone: A comprehensive survey,

    S. Pinto and N. Santos, “Demystifying arm trustzone: A comprehensive survey,”ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1–36, 2019

    2019

  162. [171]

    Improvise, adapt, overcome: Dynamic resiliency against unknown attack vectors in microgrid cybersecurity games,

    S. Rath, T. Das, and S. Sengupta, “Improvise, adapt, overcome: Dynamic resiliency against unknown attack vectors in microgrid cybersecurity games,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 4245–4258, 2024

    2024

  163. [172]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein,Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  164. [173]

    Digital twins for moving target defense validation in ac microgrids,

    S. Rath, S. Sahoo, and S. Sengupta, “Digital twins for moving target defense validation in ac microgrids,” in2023 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1271–1277

    2023

  165. [174]

    Software defined networks-based smart grid communication: A comprehensive survey,

    M. H. Rehmani, A. Davy, B. Jennings, and C. Assi, “Software defined networks-based smart grid communication: A comprehensive survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2637–2670, 2019

    2019

  166. [175]

    Ultra-low latency (ull) networks: The ieee tsn and ietf detnet standards and related 5g ull research,

    A. Nasrallah, A. S. Thyagaturu, Z. Alharbi, C. Wang, X. Shao, M. Reisslein, and H. ElBakoury, “Ultra-low latency (ull) networks: The ieee tsn and ietf detnet standards and related 5g ull research,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 88–145, 2018

    2018

  167. [2024]

    Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024%20The%20Future%20of%20Resource%20Adequacy%20Report.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024%20The%20Future%20of%20Resource%20Adequacy%20Report.pdf

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.