Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Stealth Attacks Against Moving Target Defense for Smart Grid

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An attacker who knows only which grid branches are protected can build stealth attacks that shift state estimates while bypassing bad-data detection entirely.

desk verdict The MTD-resilient stealth attack construction is genuinely new and mostly right, but the paper overstates its universality: it silently needs H′ full column rank and its spanning-tree condition only blocks the paper's own attack family. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16024 v1 pith:JVOLVE46 submitted 2024-11-25 eess.SY cs.SYeess.SPmath.OC

Ke Sun , Iñaki Esnaola , H. Vincent Poor This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYeess.SPmath.OC
keywords falsedatainjectionattacksmovingtargetdefensestealthstateestimationbaddetectionpowersystemsecurityspanningtreeincompleteinformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that moving target defense (MTD) in power-grid state estimation, where the operator changes branch admittances to confuse attackers, does not by itself stop data injection attacks. An attacker who knows only the pre-defense measurement matrix and which branches are protected can build an attack vector that shifts the estimated state while leaving the bad-data-detection residual exactly unchanged. The same construction works whether one branch or several branches are protected, with no need to know the size of the admittance changes. If the protected branches happen to contain a spanning tree of the grid graph, however, the specific attack construction collapses, giving the operator a topological condition for protection. This matters because it moves the security question from how much admittance to change to which branches to protect and what information leaks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition of the Jacobian as a sum of single-branch matrices, $H = \sum_i b_i H_i$, where $H_i$ encodes only branch $i$'s two incidence rows and its admittance contribution. Since MTD changes admittances on the protected set $E_{\mathrm{MTD}}$, the post-MTD Jacobian is $H$ plus a sum of terms $\Delta b_i [H_i]_{\cdot,\{2,\ldots,n+1\}}$; choosing $c$ so that $[H_i]_{\cdot,\{2,\ldots,n+1\}} c = 0$ for every protected branch makes $Hc = H'c$. The attack $a = Hc$ then inherits the classical stealth property that attacks lying in the column space of the post-MTD matrix leave the WLS residual unchanged while shifting the estimate by $c$. The countermeasure uses graph theory: if the protected branches contain a spanning tree, every path from the reference bus forces the components of $c$ to be zero, so no nonzero $c$ survives.

What would settle it

On a small test system with a single protected branch that does not touch the reference bus, pick any nonzero $c$ with equal entries at the branch's two endpoints, inject $a = Hc$, and compute the post-MTD residual $r'(y + a)$ for several nonzero admittance changes $\Delta b$; the theorem predicts the residual is exactly unchanged, so any nonzero residual difference would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the linearized DC power-flow model with weighted least-squares estimation and residual-based bad-data detection, the paper proves that the attack $a = Hc$ is stealthy against the post-MTD system whenever $c$ satisfies a simple equality condition at every protected branch: the two state components at the endpoints of a protected branch must be equal, or zero if the branch touches the reference bus. Because the post-MTD Jacobian equals $H$ plus a sum of per-branch perturbation terms, these conditions force each perturbation term to kill $c$, so $Hc = H'c$. The residual computed with $H'$ is then identical to the residual without the attack, while the estimated state shifts by $c$. Theorems 2 and 3 state this for the single-branch and multiple-branch cases, and Lemmas 3 and 4 show the attack leaves the protected branch flows untouched. The paper further proves that if the protected branch set contains a spanning tree of the grid graph, no nonzero $c$ satisfies the conditions, so this family of stealth attacks cannot exist.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on the attacker knowing the pre-defense measurement model and the exact identities of the protected branches; hide that branch list and the attack construction no longer applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An operator who changes admittances but leaks which branches are protected gains no residual-based detection against this attack, for any nonzero admittance perturbation size.
  • Protecting a single branch never suffices: the attacker simply avoids touching that branch's flow and shifts states elsewhere.
  • A sufficient defense is to make the protected branches contain a spanning tree; the simulations show this means protecting roughly 62 to 73 percent of branches on IEEE test systems.
  • The guarantee is topological and independent of the magnitudes of the admittance changes, so the operator can use small perturbations and still block this attack family.
  • Residual-based bad-data detection cannot see these attacks; detection would have to come from keeping the protected-branch identities secret or from monitoring protected branch flows directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If branch identities can be kept secret or randomized after each defense round, this attack family loses its premise; the paper presupposes that the set leaks while the admittance values do not.
  • The same kernel argument generalizes: any MTD whose Jacobian perturbation is a sum of per-branch terms would be defeated by $a = Hc$ with $c$ in the intersection of the kernels of those terms, so topology-changing defenses may face analogous constructions over different incidence structures.
  • Monitoring power flows on protected branches could detect this attack class directly, since Lemmas 3 and 4 show the attack deliberately leaves those flows untouched; the paper does not develop such a detector, but it follows immediately from its own results.
  • The spanning-tree condition is sufficient, not necessary; a full characterization of all minimal branch sets whose endpoint constraints force $c = 0$ would turn the countermeasure into a complete solution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies false data injection attacks against moving target defense (MTD) for linearized DC state estimation in power systems. It proves that, when the attacker knows the pre-MTD Jacobian matrix H and the set E_MTD of protected branches, an attack vector a = Hc can be stealth even when the system operator changes branch admittances, provided c satisfies certain zero-flow constraints on the protected branches (Theorems 2 and 3). The key algebraic point is that these constraints force Hc = H'c, so the attack is also stealth with respect to the post-MTD Jacobian H'. The paper then shows that if the protected branches form a spanning tree, no nonzero c satisfies the constraints, and it proposes this as a countermeasure. The results are illustrated on IEEE test systems.

Significance. The central claim is significant and somewhat counterintuitive: MTD's protection does not depend on the magnitudes of the admittance changes, only on which branches are protected and on the attacker's ignorance of those identities. If the main theorems hold, they provide a clean graph-theoretic criterion for a class of MTD-resilient attacks and a spanning-tree countermeasure. Strengths of the paper include the explicit algebraic derivation of the attack constraints, the absence of any parameter fitting or circular argument in the construction, and the clear graph-theoretic formulation of the countermeasure. The paper also separates the single-branch and multiple-branch cases in a pedagogically useful way. However, the main theorems and the abstract's broader claims require qualification because the proofs depend on an unstated full-rank condition on H' and because the countermeasure statement is stronger than what Lemma 5 actually establishes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-D, Definition 2 and Eq. (21)] The definition of K' and the proofs of Theorems 2 and 3 assume that H'^T W H' is invertible, equivalently that H' has full column rank. This condition is never stated. It can fail, for example, if a protected branch is a bridge and Δb_k = -b_k, because then that branch's admittance becomes zero, the effective graph disconnects, and rank(H') < n. In that case Eq. (21) is undefined and Definition 2 does not apply, yet Section IV states that the results hold for any value of Δb_i. This is a load-bearing gap because the claimed universality over all Δb_i is false without an additional hypothesis. I recommend adding an explicit rank (or positive-admittance and connectedness) assumption on H', or restricting Δb_i to values that preserve the rank; the theorems then remain valid as shown.
  2. [Abstract and Section I, 'sufficient protection condition'] The abstract claims that the proposed spanning-tree condition guarantees that 'the system is not vulnerable to DIAs.' Lemma 5, however, only proves that no nonzero c satisfies the sufficient attack-construction constraints (28) or (31) for attacks of the form a = Hc considered in Theorems 2 and 3. It does not rule out other stealth attacks, for example an attacker who later learns H' could use the classical construction a = H'c from Theorem 1. The countermeasure claim should be restricted to the class of MTD-resilient stealth attacks constructed under the paper's incomplete-information model.
  3. [Appendices C and E, Eqs. (52) and (73)] The step K' y_a = K' y + c in both proofs relies on K' H' = I. This identity is used without comment. It is true when H' has full column rank, but the paper never proves or states that the post-MTD Jacobian H' has full column rank. Since the same rank issue affects both the residual calculation in (50)-(51) and the definition of K' itself, the main theorems should explicitly condition on this rank property. This is a qualification rather than a refutation: for typical small admittance changes that preserve the connectedness of the effective graph, the construction is correct.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (69)] In the proof of Theorem 3, the summation in Eq. (69) uses [H_k] inside the sum, but the index should be [H_i] to match the summation variable i; the same typo appears in the surrounding text.
  2. [Appendix G] The proof of Lemma 5 is correct but terse: it would be clearer to state explicitly that, because the protected subgraph is a spanning tree, every bus is connected to the reference bus by a unique path and each step of that path forces the corresponding component of c to vanish, so c must be zero.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'gird' in Section I, 'indentity' in Section V-A, 'MTD resislent' in Theorem 3, and 'stalth' in Section V-B.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'information only about which branches are protected' is a shorthand: the attack construction also requires knowledge of the pre-MTD Jacobian H. The theorems state this precisely, but the abstract could be more careful to avoid implying that the protected-branch set alone suffices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the stealth-attack construction is a self-contained algebraic consequence of Hc=H'c and the external stealth-attack theorem.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The attack is constructed as a = Hc using the pre-MTD Jacobian and the protected-branch set only; no parameter is fitted to data and the result does not assume its own conclusion. Theorems 2 and 3 prove the key identity Hc = H'c by showing that the conditions (23), (25), (28), and (31) force each protected-branch term Δb_i[H_i]c to vanish, which is an algebraic calculation independent of the change magnitudes. Residual invariance then follows by applying Theorem 1, quoted from Liu, Ning, and Reiter [3], an external standard result that a = H'c is stealthy under H'. The paper's own citations to prior work by overlapping authors ([6], [7], [27], [28]) appear only as background on attack information requirements and are not load-bearing for Theorems 2-5. Lemma 5, the spanning-tree countermeasure, is proved directly from graph theory in Appendix G and does not invoke the paper's attack construction as evidence. The one substantive caveat is that Definition 2 and equation (21) require H' to have full column rank for K' to exist, and the theorems do not state this hypothesis; this is an unverified premise or correctness qualification, not a circular step, because the stated proof would still carry through under the missing rank condition without using any fitted or self-cited input. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs or to a self-citation chain.

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

No free parameters appear in the theoretical results. The simulation settings (sigma = 3, tau, alpha) are illustrative and not fitted to support the theorems. The axioms listed are the standard linearized power-flow model, the connected-graph rank property, the attacker knowledge threat model, the full-rank condition on H', and the external stealth-attack theorem.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linearized DC power flow model with measurements p, f, and -f (Eq. 11)
    The entire attack analysis works on the linearized Jacobian H, standard in FDI literature but an approximation of AC power flow.
  • standard math The graph of the power system is connected, so the branch-bus incidence matrix A has rank n and removing the reference column makes H full rank
    Used in Lemma 1 and the proof of Lemma 5; disconnected systems would break the rank argument and the spanning-tree countermeasure.
  • domain assumption The attacker knows the pre-MTD Jacobian H and the protected branch set E_MTD, and cannot observe the admittance changes Delta b_i
    This threat model is stated in Section II-D and is what makes the 'only which branches' result meaningful; if E_MTD is hidden, the construction fails.
  • domain assumption After MTD, the Jacobian H' in (20) remains full column rank, i.e. b_i + Delta b_i != 0 and the graph remains connected
    Needed for K' = (H'^T W H')^{-1} H'^T W in (21) to be well defined; not stated in Theorems 2 and 3.
  • standard math W is positive definite and H is full rank, so the WLS estimate and residual are as in (2)-(5)
    Used for Theorem 1 and the residual invariance argument.
  • standard math Theorem 1 from [3]: a = Hc is stealth under H when H is the true Jacobian
    External result imported from Liu et al.; the paper's proofs extend it to the MTD setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stealth Attacks Against Moving Target Defense for Smart Grid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVOLVE46

@misc{pith2026241116024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stealth Attacks Against Moving Target Defense for Smart Grid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVOLVE46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16024}
}
read the original abstract

Data injection attacks (DIAs) pose a significant cybersecurity threat to the Smart Grid by enabling an attacker to compromise the integrity of data acquisition and manipulate estimated states without triggering bad data detection procedures. To mitigate this vulnerability, the moving target defense (MTD) alters branch admittances to mismatch the system information that is available to an attacker, thereby inducing an imperfect DIA construction that results in degradation of attack performance. In this paper, we first analyze the existence of stealth attacks for the case in which the MTD strategy only changes the admittance of a single branch. Equipped with this initial insight, we then extend the results to the case in which multiple branches are protected by the MTD strategy. Remarkably, we show that stealth attacks can be constructed with information only about which branches are protected, without knowledge about the particular admittance value changes. Furthermore, we provide a sufficient protection condition for the MTD strategy via graph-theoretic tools that guarantee that the system is not vulnerable to DIAs. Numerical simulations are implemented on IEEE test systems to validate the obtained results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16024 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Increase in probability of detection when the operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Probability of MTD-resilient stealth attack in Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Branches in the MST of IEEE 14-Bus test system when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    On hiddenness of moving target defense against false data injection attacks on power grid,

    Z. Zhang, R. Deng, D. K. Y . Yau, P. Cheng, and J. Chen, “On hiddenness of moving target defense against false data injection attacks on power grid,” ACM Trans. Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–29, Mar. 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    The VIKING project: An initiative on resilient control of power networks,

    A. Giani, S. Sastry, K. H. Johansson, and H. Sandberg, “The VIKING project: An initiative on resilient control of power networks,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Resilient Control Syst. , Idaho Falls, ID, USA, Aug. 2009, pp. 31–35

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    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,” in Proc. ACM Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, Chicago, IL, USA, Nov. 2009, pp. 21–32

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

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

    ——, “False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids,” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 13:1– 13:33, Jun. 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    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 Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 645–658, Dec. 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Maximum distortion attacks in electricity grids,

    I. Esnaola, S. M. Perlaza, H. V . Poor, and O. Kosut, “Maximum distortion attacks in electricity grids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2007–2015, Jul. 2016

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    Information-theoretic attacks in the smart grid,

    K. Sun, I. Esnaola, S. M. Perlaza, and H. V . Poor, “Information-theoretic attacks in the smart grid,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Smart Grid Commun., Dresden, Germany, Oct. 2017, pp. 455–460

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Stealth attacks on the smart grid,

    ——, “Stealth attacks on the smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1276–1285, Mar. 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Moving target defense,

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Moving target defense,” https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/csd-mtd, Jan. 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Moving target defense for hardening the security of the power system state estimation,

    M. A. Rahman, E. Al-Shaer, and R. B. Bobba, “Moving target defense for hardening the security of the power system state estimation,” in Proc. First ACM Workshop on Moving Target Defense , Arizona, Scottsdale, USA, Nov 2014, pp. 59–68

    2014

  3. [10]

    Analysis of moving target defense against false data injection attacks on power grid,

    Z. Zhang, R. Deng, D. K. Y . Yau, P. Cheng, and J. Chen, “Analysis of moving target defense against false data injection attacks on power grid,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 15, pp. 2320–2335, 2019. 8

    2019

  4. [11]

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

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

    2020

  5. [12]

    Optimal D-FACTS placement in moving target defense against false data injection attacks,

    B. Liu and H. Wu, “Optimal D-FACTS placement in moving target defense against false data injection attacks,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 4345–4357, Sep. 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Robust moving target defence against false data injection attacks in power grids,

    W. Xu, I. M. Jaimoukha, and F. Teng, “Robust moving target defence against false data injection attacks in power grids,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 18, pp. 29–40, Sep. 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    FACTS technology-state of the art, current challenges and the future prospects,

    N. G. Hingorani, “FACTS technology-state of the art, current challenges and the future prospects,” in Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Tampa, FL, USA, Jun. 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Zhang, C

    X. Zhang, C. Rehtanz, and B. Pal, Flexible AC Transmission Systems: Modelling and Control . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Topology perturbation for detecting malicious data injection,

    K. L. Morrow, E. Heine, K. M. Rogers, and T. J. Bobba, R. B .and Over- bye, “Topology perturbation for detecting malicious data injection,” in Proc. 45th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences , Maui, HI, USA, Jan. 2012, pp. 2104–2113

    2012

  10. [18]

    Effects of switching network topologies on stealthy false data injection attacks against state estimation in power networks,

    S. Wang, W. Ren, and U. M. Al-Saggaf, “Effects of switching network topologies on stealthy false data injection attacks against state estimation in power networks,”IEEE Sensors J., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 2640–2651, Nov. 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Transmission-line switching for load shed prevention via an accelerated linear programming approxima- tion of ac power flows,

    W. E. Brown and E. Moreno-Centeno, “Transmission-line switching for load shed prevention via an accelerated linear programming approxima- tion of ac power flows,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2575–2585, Jul. 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    A robust learning framework for smart grids in defense against false-data injection attacks,

    Z. Miao and J. Yu, “A robust learning framework for smart grids in defense against false-data injection attacks,” ACM Trans. Sensor Networks, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Moving target defense for securing scada communications,

    V . Heydari, “Moving target defense for securing scada communications,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 33 329–33 343, Jun. 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Network-based multidimensional moving target defense against false data injection attack in power system,

    Y . Hu, P. Xun, P. Zhu, Y . Xiong, Y . Zhu, W. Shi, and C. Hu, “Network-based multidimensional moving target defense against false data injection attack in power system,” Computers & Security, vol. 107, p. 102283, Aug. 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

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

    S. Lakshminarayana, Y . Chen, C. Konstantinou, D. Mashima, and A. K. Srivastava, “Survey of moving target defense in power grids: Design principles, tradeoffs, and future directions,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18317

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    False data injection attacks with incomplete information against smart power grids,

    M. A. Rahman and H. Mohsenian-Rad, “False data injection attacks with incomplete information against smart power grids,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf., Anaheim, CA, USA, Dec. 2012, pp. 3153–3158

    2012

  17. [25]

    Blind topology identification for power systems,

    X. Li, H. V . Poor, and A. Scaglione, “Blind topology identification for power systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Smart Grid Commun. , Vancouver, Canada, Oct. 2013, pp. 91–96

    2013

  18. [26]

    Blind false data injection attack using PCA approximation method in smart grid,

    Z. H. Yu and W. L. Chin, “Blind false data injection attack using PCA approximation method in smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1219–1226, May 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Learning requirements for stealth attacks,

    K. Sun, I. Esnaola, A. M. Tulino, and H. V . Poor, “Learning requirements for stealth attacks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoust., Speech and Signal Process., Brighton, United Kingdom, 2019, pp. 8102–8106

    2019

  20. [28]

    Asymptotic learning requirements for stealth attacks on linearized state estimation,

    ——, “Asymptotic learning requirements for stealth attacks on linearized state estimation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 3189 – 3200, Jul. 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    J. J. Grainger and W. D. Stevenson, Power System Analysis. McGraw- Hill, 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    Abur and A

    A. Abur and A. G. Exp ´osito, Power System State Estimation: Theory and Implementation. CRC Press, Mar. 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    1993

  24. [32]

    On the properties of the power systems nodal admittance matrix,

    A. M. Kettner and M. Paolone, “On the properties of the power systems nodal admittance matrix,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1130–1131, Jan. 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Towards a theory of moving target defense,

    R. Zhuang, S. A. DeLoach, and X. Ou, “Towards a theory of moving target defense,” in Proc. of the first ACM Workshop on Moving Target Defense, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, Nov. 2014, pp. 31–40

    2014

  26. [34]

    Some applications of distributed flexible ac transmission system (D-FACTS) devices in power systems,

    K. M. Rogers and T. J. Overbye, “Some applications of distributed flexible ac transmission system (D-FACTS) devices in power systems,” in Proc. 40th North American Power Symp., Calgary, Canada, Sep. 2008, pp. 1–8

    2008

  27. [35]

    D. B. West, Introduction to Graph Theory . Pearson, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    On the history of the minimum spanning tree problem,

    R. L. Graham and P. Hell, “On the history of the minimum spanning tree problem,” Annals of the History of Computing , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 43–57, 1985

    1985

  29. [37]

    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 Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, Feb. 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Quadratically constrained quadratic programming formulation of contingency constrained optimal power flow with photovoltaic generation,

    L. M. Leon, A. S. Bretas, and S. Rivera, “Quadratically constrained quadratic programming formulation of contingency constrained optimal power flow with photovoltaic generation,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 3310, Jun. 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Li, Probabilistic Transmission System Planning

    W. Li, Probabilistic Transmission System Planning . John Wiley & Sons, 2011. APPENDIX A PROOF OF LEMMA 1 We begin by noting that   ATDA DA −DA   =   AT I −I   DA, (35) where I is the identity matrix of dimension l. Furthermore, it holds that any row of AT can be expres...

    2011

  32. [40]

    Hence, for all c ∈ {Rn\0} such that the condition in (23) holds, we have that K′ya ̸= K′y

    Furthermore, it holds that K′ya = K′ (y + Hc) = K′ (y + H′c) = K′y + c, (52) where K′ is defined in (21). Hence, for all c ∈ {Rn\0} such that the condition in (23) holds, we have that K′ya ̸= K′y. (53) Note that (51) and (53) comply with Definition 2. As a result, for all c ∈ ...

Pith tools

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