One of the significant challenges that smart grid networks face is cyber-security. Several studies have been conducted to highlight those security challenges. However, the majority of these surveys classify attacks based on the security requirements, confidentiality, integrity, and availability, without taking into consideration the accountability requirement. In addition, some of these surveys focused on the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) model, which does not differentiate between the application, session, and presentation and the data link and physical layers of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model. In this survey paper, we provide a classification of attacks based on the OSI model and discuss in more detail the cyber-attacks that can target the different layers of smart grid networks communication. We also propose new classifications for the detection and countermeasure techniques and describe existing techniques under each category. Finally, we discuss challenges and future research directions.

Uniformity testing is one of the most well-studied problems in property testing, with many known test statistics, including ones based on counting collisions, singletons, and the empirical TV distance. It is known that the optimal sample complexity to distinguish the uniform distribution on $m$ elements from any $\epsilon$-far distribution with $1-\delta$ probability is $n = \Theta\left(\frac{\sqrt{m \log (1/\delta)}}{\epsilon^2} + \frac{\log (1/\delta)}{\epsilon^2}\right)$, which is achieved by the empirical TV tester. Yet in simulation, these theoretical analyses are misleading: in many cases, they do not correctly rank order the performance of existing testers, even in an asymptotic regime of all parameters tending to $0$ or $\infty$. We explain this discrepancy by studying the \emph{constant factors} required by the algorithms. We show that the collisions tester achieves a sharp maximal constant in the number of standard deviations of separation between uniform and non-uniform inputs. We then introduce a new tester based on the Huber loss, and show that it not only matches this separation, but also has tails corresponding to a Gaussian with this separation. This leads to a sample complexity of $(1 + o(1))\frac{\sqrt{m \log (1/\delta)}}{\epsilon^2}$ in the regime where this term is dominant, unlike all other existing testers.

Anomaly detection is essential for preventing hazardous outcomes for safety-critical applications like autonomous driving. Given their safety-criticality, these applications benefit from provable bounds on various errors in anomaly detection. To achieve this goal in the semi-supervised setting, we propose to provide Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) guarantees on the false negative and false positive detection rates for anomaly detection algorithms. Our method (PAC-Wrap) can wrap around virtually any existing semi-supervised and unsupervised anomaly detection method, endowing it with rigorous guarantees. Our experiments with various anomaly detectors and datasets indicate that PAC-Wrap is broadly effective.

The ROC curve is also used in order to compute the area under the ROC curve metric. The ROC curve of a perfect model will approach the top-left corner, whilst a random model will approach the diagonal (True positive rate False positive rate). The area under the ROC curve ranges between 0. and 1 and can be computed via a BinaryClassificationEvaluator object The result is impressive, despite the attempt to hamper the model quality. The area under the ROC curve for the training set can be obtained from the model summary lr_model.summary.areaUnderROC. The BinaryClassificationEvaluator object can also be used to compute the area under the PR curve.

Python has become the most popular data science and machine learning programming language. But in order to obtain effective data and results, it's important that you have a basic understanding of how it works with machine learning. In this introductory tutorial, you'll learn the basics of Python for machine learning, including different model types and the steps to take to ensure you obtain quality data, using a sample machine learning problem. In addition, you'll get to know some of the most popular libraries and tools for machine learning. Machine learning (ML) is a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that teaches computers to make predictions and recommendations and solve problems based on data. Its problem-solving capabilities make it a useful tool in industries such as financial services, healthcare, marketing and sales, and education among others. There are three main types of machine learning: supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement. In supervised learning, the computer is given a set of training data that includes both the input data (what we want to predict) and the output data (the prediction).

Jet tagging is a critical yet challenging classification task in particle physics. While deep learning has transformed jet tagging and significantly improved performance, the lack of a large-scale public dataset impedes further enhancement. In this work, we present JetClass, a new comprehensive dataset for jet tagging. The JetClass dataset consists of 100 M jets, about two orders of magnitude larger than existing public datasets. A total of 10 types of jets are simulated, including several types unexplored for tagging so far. Based on the large dataset, we propose a new Transformer-based architecture for jet tagging, called Particle Transformer (ParT). By incorporating pairwise particle interactions in the attention mechanism, ParT achieves higher tagging performance than a plain Transformer and surpasses the previous state-of-the-art, ParticleNet, by a large margin. The pre-trained ParT models, once fine-tuned, also substantially enhance the performance on two widely adopted jet tagging benchmarks. The dataset, code and models are publicly available at https://github.com/jet-universe/particle_transformer.

Model evaluation is an important part of a data science project and it's exactly this part that quantifies how good your model is, how much it has improved from the previous version, how much better it is than your colleague's model, and how much room for improvement there still is. It is not unusual in machine learning applications to deal with imbalanced datasets such as fraud detection, computer network intrusion, medical diagnostics, and many more. Data imbalance refers to unequal distribution of classes within a dataset, namely that there are far fewer events in one class in comparison to the others. If, for example we have credit card fraud detection dataset, most of the transactions are not fraudulent and very few can be classed as fraud detections. This underrepresented class is called the minority class, and by convention, the positive class.

With machine learning being a popular topic in current computational materials science literature, creating representations for compounds has become common place. These representations are rarely compared, as evaluating their performance - and the performance of the algorithms that they are used with - is non-trivial. With many materials datasets containing bias and skew caused by the research process, leave one cluster out cross validation (LOCO-CV) has been introduced as a way of measuring the performance of an algorithm in predicting previously unseen groups of materials. This raises the question of the impact, and control, of the range of cluster sizes on the LOCO-CV measurement outcomes. We present a thorough comparison between composition-based representations, and investigate how kernel approximation functions can be used to better separate data to enhance LOCO-CV applications. We find that domain knowledge does not improve machine learning performance in most tasks tested, with band gap prediction being the notable exception. We also find that the radial basis function improves the linear separability of chemical datasets in all 10 datasets tested and provide a framework for the application of this function in the LOCO-CV process to improve the outcome of LOCO-CV measurements regardless of machine learning algorithm, choice of metric, and choice of compound representation. We recommend kernelised LOCO-CV as a training paradigm for those looking to measure the extrapolatory power of an algorithm on materials data.

Despite recent advances in algorithmic fairness, To address these issues there has recently been a significant methodologies for achieving fairness with generalized body of work in the machine learning community on linear models (GLMs) have yet to be algorithmic fairness in the context of predictive modeling, explored in general, despite GLMs being widely including (i) data preprocessing methods that try to reduce used in practice. In this paper we introduce two disparities, (ii) in-process approaches which enforce fairness fairness criteria for GLMs based on equalizing during model training, and (iii) post-process approaches expected outcomes or log-likelihoods. We prove which adjust a model's predictions to achieve fairness after that for GLMs both criteria can be achieved via training is completed. However, the majority of this work a convex penalty term based solely on the linear has focused on classification problems with binary outcome components of the GLM, thus permitting efficient variables, and to a lesser extent on regression.

In this paper we investigate Charon's craters size distribution using a deep learning model. This is motivated by the recent results of Singer et al. (2019) who, using manual cataloging, found a change in the size distribution slope of craters smaller than 12 km in diameter, translating into a paucity of small Kuiper Belt objects. These results were corroborated by Robbins and Singer (2021), but opposed by Morbidelli et al. (2021), necessitating an independent review. Our MaskRCNN-based ensemble of models was trained on Lunar, Mercurian, and Martian crater catalogues and both optical and digital elevation images. We use a robust image augmentation scheme to force the model to generalize and transfer-learn into icy objects. With no prior bias or exposure to Charon, our model find best fit slopes of q =-1.47+-0.33 for craters smaller than 10 km, and q =-2.91+-0.51 for craters larger than 15 km. These values indicate a clear change in slope around 15 km as suggested by Singer et al. (2019) and thus independently confirm their conclusions. Our slopes however are both slightly flatter than those found more recently by Robbins and Singer (2021). Our trained models and relevant codes are available online on github.com/malidib/ACID .