arxiv: 2605.14509 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-14 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Admittance-Guided Inverter Dispatch Command Manipulation Attack: A Grid Stability-Oriented Approach

Hongwei Zhen , Ze Yu , Xin Xiang , Mingyang Sun , Wuhua Li

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords cyber-attackmicrogridinverter dispatchadmittance reconstructionstability marginsub-synchronous oscillationphysics-informed neural networkvoltage source converter

0 comments

The pith

Manipulating dispatch commands to one inverter can induce severe sub-synchronous oscillations in microgrids while staying inside normal bounds.

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

The paper shows how to locate the single worst dispatch command for a compromised inverter by first injecting controlled harmonics to gather sparse measurements and then training a physics-informed neural network to map every feasible dispatch point to the inverter's admittance. This reconstructed admittance feeds a stability-margin optimization that ranks inverters by vulnerability and selects the command that shrinks stability margins most. A sympathetic reader cares because modern microgrids rely on static limit checks that this approach bypasses, allowing attacks to push the system into oscillations without obvious rule violations. The result demonstrates that command screening must incorporate dynamic admittance effects as inverter counts rise.

Core claim

By using sparse harmonic perturbations from a compromised inverter to train a physics-informed neural network, the framework reconstructs the operating-point-dependent admittance of target inverters across the entire feasible dispatch region; a subsequent stability-margin optimization then identifies the most vulnerable inverter and the worst-case dispatch command that drives the microgrid into severe sub-synchronous oscillations, all while the command remains inside nominal bounds, as confirmed in controller hardware-in-the-loop tests on a five-inverter system.

What carries the argument

The admittance-guided optimization that reconstructs operating-point-dependent admittance via physics-informed neural network and then searches for the dispatch command minimizing stability margins.

Load-bearing premise

The physics-informed neural network accurately reconstructs each inverter's admittance across the full range of feasible dispatch points from only sparse harmonic measurements.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of actual admittance at many dispatch points in the same five-inverter microgrid would show whether the neural-network predictions deviate enough to change which command the optimizer selects as worst-case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14509 by Hongwei Zhen, Mingyang Sun, Wuhua Li, Xin Xiang, Ze Yu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The flowchart of the proposed admittance-guided identification procedure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of different control loop bandwidth in grid-tied VSC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Architecture of the proposed physics-informed neural network for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Norton-equivalent representation of the grid-tied microgrid. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Configuration of the CHIL experimental platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The PINN algorithm is implemented in Python 3.9 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Admittance identification results at rated dispatch commands, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: PINN-predicted admittance of VSC-A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Magnitude and phase prediction errors of PINN model for VSC-A. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Microgrid stability degradation under the proposed targeted attack: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Performance comparison between the identified destabilizing dispatch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The high penetration of voltage source converters in modern smart microgrids enhances operational flexibility while introducing complex cyber-physical vulnerabilities. Existing cyber-attack studies either require detailed knowledge of system topology and controller dynamics or depend on repeated online interactions, which may compromise practicality by generating operationally infeasible or limit-violating commands. This article investigates a dispatch command manipulation attack and develops an admittance-guided framework to identify the vulnerable inverter and the worst-case dispatch command that most severely degrades system stability. A compromised inverter is utilized to inject controlled harmonic perturbations for sparse admittance measurement, and a physics-informed neural network is then employed to reconstruct the operating-point-dependent admittance of target inverters over the feasible dispatch region. Based on the reconstructed admittance, a stability-margin-oriented optimization is formulated to locate the most vulnerable inverter and the corresponding worst-case dispatch command. Controller hardware-in-the-loop experiments on a five-inverter microgrid demonstrate that the identified command can drive the system into severe sub-synchronous oscillations while remaining within nominal dispatch bounds, highlighting the need for stability-aware command screening beyond static limit checking.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a practical way to locate stability-damaging dispatch commands in inverter microgrids by using one compromised unit for harmonic admittance measurements and a PINN to fill in the model for optimization.

read the letter

The core result is that a single compromised inverter can inject controlled harmonics, feed those into a physics-informed neural net to reconstruct operating-point admittance for the others, and then run a stability-margin optimization to pick a dispatch command that triggers severe sub-synchronous oscillations in hardware-in-the-loop tests on a five-inverter setup, all while staying inside normal bounds. That experimental outcome is the strongest part of the work. The integration of sparse measurement, neural reconstruction, and margin-based search is not something I have seen laid out this way before, and the HIL demonstration makes the claim concrete rather than purely theoretical. The approach is straightforward enough that someone working on microgrid security could try to replicate the pipeline. The main soft spot is the lack of reported error metrics or cross-validation for the PINN admittance model across the full dispatch region. The abstract and stress-test note both flag this gap, and without quantitative bounds on reconstruction accuracy at held-out points it is hard to rule out that the chosen command is partly an artifact of model error rather than a genuine vulnerability. The optimization itself looks standard once the admittance is in hand, so the claim rests heavily on that surrogate being faithful. This paper is aimed at researchers and engineers focused on cyber-physical security of inverter-dominated grids. It is worth sending to peer review because the experimental result is tangible and the method is implementable, even if the reconstruction step needs tighter validation before the attack scenario can be treated as fully general.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an admittance-guided framework to identify vulnerable inverters and worst-case dispatch commands for a manipulation attack in microgrids. A compromised inverter injects sparse harmonic perturbations to measure admittance; a physics-informed neural network reconstructs the operating-point-dependent admittance of target inverters across the feasible dispatch region; a stability-margin optimization then selects the most destabilizing command within nominal bounds. Controller hardware-in-the-loop experiments on a five-inverter microgrid are reported to induce severe sub-synchronous oscillations.

Significance. If the reconstruction accuracy holds, the result demonstrates a practical cyber-physical attack vector that exploits dispatch commands respecting static limits to degrade grid stability, underscoring the need for dynamic stability screening. The combination of sparse measurement, PINN surrogate modeling, and HIL validation constitutes a concrete contribution to inverter-based microgrid security analysis.

major comments (3)

[PINN admittance reconstruction and validation] The central claim depends on the PINN producing an accurate operating-point-dependent admittance model over the entire feasible dispatch region from sparse harmonic injections. No quantitative error bounds, cross-validation scores, or comparison against ground-truth admittance (analytical or high-fidelity simulation) at held-out dispatch points are reported; without these, the optimized command could be an artifact of reconstruction error rather than a genuine stability vulnerability.
[Optimization formulation] The stability-margin-oriented optimization is formulated using the reconstructed admittance, yet the manuscript provides neither the explicit objective function and constraints nor a sensitivity analysis showing how reconstruction errors propagate to the identified worst-case command and stability margin.
[Controller hardware-in-the-loop experiments] The HIL experiments demonstrate oscillations under the identified command, but lack baseline comparisons (e.g., random feasible commands or analytically derived worst-case commands) and quantitative metrics of stability-margin reduction, making it difficult to confirm that the command is indeed the most severe within nominal bounds.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction and Methods] Notation for the admittance matrix and operating-point dependence should be introduced with explicit equations early in the methods section to improve readability.
[Abstract] The abstract states 'severe sub-synchronous oscillations' without specifying the frequency range or damping ratio; adding these quantitative descriptors would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important aspects of validation, formulation clarity, and experimental rigor. We agree that these elements require strengthening to fully support the claims. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested revisions in the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [PINN admittance reconstruction and validation] The central claim depends on the PINN producing an accurate operating-point-dependent admittance model over the entire feasible dispatch region from sparse harmonic injections. No quantitative error bounds, cross-validation scores, or comparison against ground-truth admittance (analytical or high-fidelity simulation) at held-out dispatch points are reported; without these, the optimized command could be an artifact of reconstruction error rather than a genuine stability vulnerability.

Authors: We acknowledge the absence of comprehensive quantitative validation metrics in the current manuscript. In the revised version, we will add k-fold cross-validation scores across the dispatch region, L2 error bounds on admittance magnitude and phase, and direct comparisons against both analytical small-signal models and high-fidelity EMT simulations at multiple held-out operating points. These additions will demonstrate that reconstruction errors remain sufficiently small to preserve the identified stability vulnerability. revision: yes
Referee: [Optimization formulation] The stability-margin-oriented optimization is formulated using the reconstructed admittance, yet the manuscript provides neither the explicit objective function and constraints nor a sensitivity analysis showing how reconstruction errors propagate to the identified worst-case command and stability margin.

Authors: The optimization is described in Section IV, but we agree that greater mathematical explicitness is needed. We will insert the full problem statement (objective: minimize the smallest damping ratio of the closed-loop system; constraints: nominal dispatch bounds and power limits) together with a first-order sensitivity analysis that quantifies how bounded admittance reconstruction errors translate into bounded shifts in the worst-case command and stability margin. This will confirm that the identified attack remains valid within the reported error tolerances. revision: yes
Referee: [Controller hardware-in-the-loop experiments] The HIL experiments demonstrate oscillations under the identified command, but lack baseline comparisons (e.g., random feasible commands or analytically derived worst-case commands) and quantitative metrics of stability-margin reduction, making it difficult to confirm that the command is indeed the most severe within nominal bounds.

Authors: We will expand the experimental results section to include baseline comparisons against (i) randomly sampled feasible dispatch commands and (ii) commands obtained from a simplified analytical worst-case search. Quantitative metrics will be added, including measured reductions in damping ratio (via Prony analysis of HIL waveforms) and peak oscillation amplitude, to demonstrate that the identified command produces statistically larger stability degradation than the baselines while remaining inside nominal limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external measurements and HIL validation

full rationale

The paper measures admittance via controlled harmonic perturbations from a compromised inverter, reconstructs operating-point-dependent admittance with a PINN, formulates a stability-margin optimization to select the worst-case dispatch command, and validates the result via independent controller hardware-in-the-loop experiments on a five-inverter microgrid. None of the load-bearing steps (measurement, reconstruction, optimization, or experimental demonstration) reduce by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or self-defined quantity. The central claim is externally falsifiable through the HIL setup and does not rely on renaming known results or importing uniqueness theorems from the authors' prior work. This is a standard non-circular empirical pipeline.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard small-signal stability assumptions in power systems and on the accuracy of a fitted physics-informed neural network; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

physics-informed neural network weights
Weights and biases fitted to sparse admittance data collected via harmonic perturbations.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Small-signal linearization around operating points remains valid for stability-margin assessment
Invoked to translate reconstructed admittance into stability margins used by the optimization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1186 out tokens · 36288 ms · 2026-05-15T01:44:19.367351+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

physics-informed neural network ... reconstruct the operating-point-dependent admittance ... stability-margin-oriented optimization

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Foundations and challenges of low-inertia systems (invited paper),

F. Milano, F. D ¨orfler, G. Hug, D. J. Hill, and G. Verbi ˇc, “Foundations and challenges of low-inertia systems (invited paper),” in2018 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), 2018, pp. 1–25

2018
[2]

Grid-synchronization stability of converter-based resources—an overview,

X. Wang, M. G. Taul, H. Wu, Y . Liao, F. Blaabjerg, and L. Harne- fors, “Grid-synchronization stability of converter-based resources—an overview,”IEEE Open Journal of Industry Applications, vol. 1, pp. 115– 134, 2020

2020
[3]

Cyber security in control of grid-tied power electronic converters—challenges and vulnerabilities,

S. Sahoo, T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, and F. Blaabjerg, “Cyber security in control of grid-tied power electronic converters—challenges and vulnerabilities,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 5326–5340, 2021

2021
[4]

The 2015 ukraine blackout: Implications for false data injection attacks,

G. Liang, S. R. Weller, J. Zhao, F. Luo, and Z. Y . Dong, “The 2015 ukraine blackout: Implications for false data injection attacks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3317–3318, 2017

2015
[5]

Public history of solar energy cyberattacks and vulnerabilities,

DER Security Corp, “Public history of solar energy cyberattacks and vulnerabilities,” DER Security Corp, Tech. Rep., Nov 2024, accessed: Dec. 04, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://dersec.io/reports/

2024
[6]

I. Ilascu. (2017, Aug.) Hackers could cut power to thousands of homes in attack on photovoltaic in- stallations. Bitdefender. Accessed: Dec. 4, 2025. [On- line]. Available: https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/ hackers-cut-power-thousands-home-attack-photovoltaic-installations

2017
[7]

Smart cyber- attack diagnosis and mitigation in a wind farm network operator,

H. Badihi, S. Jadidi, Z. Yu, Y . Zhang, and N. Lu, “Smart cyber- attack diagnosis and mitigation in a wind farm network operator,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 9468–9478, 2023

2023
[8]

Destabilizing power grid and energy market by cyberattacks on smart inverters,

X. Hui, S. Karumba, S. C.-K. Chau, and M. Ahmed, “Destabilizing power grid and energy market by cyberattacks on smart inverters,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Future and Sustainable Energy Systems, ser. E-Energy ’25. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 136–151. [Online]. Available: https://doi.or...

work page doi:10.1145/3679240.3734613 2025
[9]

Enhancing cyber-resiliency of der-based smart grid: A survey,

M. Liu, F. Teng, Z. Zhang, P. Ge, M. Sun, R. Deng, P. Cheng, and J. Chen, “Enhancing cyber-resiliency of der-based smart grid: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 4998–5030, 2024

2024
[10]

Cybersecurity of smart inverters in the smart grid: A survey,

Y . Li and J. Yan, “Cybersecurity of smart inverters in the smart grid: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 2364–2383, 2023

2023
[11]

Experimental cybersecurity evaluation of distributed solar inverters: Vulnerabilities and impacts on the australian grid,

A. S. Musleh, J. Ahmed, N. Ahmed, H. Xu, G. Chen, S. Kerr, and S. Jha, “Experimental cybersecurity evaluation of distributed solar inverters: Vulnerabilities and impacts on the australian grid,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 5139–5150, 2024

2024
[12]

Cyberattack on phase-locked loops in inverter-based energy resources,

A. Bamigbade, Y . Dvorkin, and R. Karri, “Cyberattack on phase-locked loops in inverter-based energy resources,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 821–833, 2024

2024
[13]

Hardware-assisted detection of firmware attacks in inverter-based cyberphysical microgrids,

A. P. Kuruvila, I. Zografopoulos, K. Basu, and C. Konstantinou, “Hardware-assisted detection of firmware attacks in inverter-based cyberphysical microgrids,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 132, p. 107150, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061521003896

2021
[14]

Hall spoofing: A Non-Invasive DoS attack on Grid-Tied solar inverter,

A. Barua and M. A. A. Faruque, “Hall spoofing: A Non-Invasive DoS attack on Grid-Tied solar inverter,” in29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20). USENIX Association, Aug. 2020, pp. 1273–1290. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity20/presentation/barua

2020
[15]

A test bed for detecting false data injection attacks in systems with distributed energy resources,

H. M. Albunashee, C. Farnell, A. Suchanek, K. Haulmark, R. A. McCann, J. Di, and A. Mantooth, “A test bed for detecting false data injection attacks in systems with distributed energy resources,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1303–1315, 2022

2022
[16]

False data injection attacks against state estimation in multiphase and unbalanced smart distribution systems,

P. Zhuang, R. Deng, and H. Liang, “False data injection attacks against state estimation in multiphase and unbalanced smart distribution systems,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 6000– 6013, 2019

2019
[17]

False data injection attacks in power distribution systems considering the charac- teristics of distributed photovoltaic,

Y . Liu, M. Wen, H. Wen, R. Deng, S. Peng, and N. Guo, “False data injection attacks in power distribution systems considering the charac- teristics of distributed photovoltaic,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2023–2032, 2025

2023
[18]

Design and defense of modal resonance-oriented cyber-attack against wide-area damping control,

Z. Wang and S. Bu, “Design and defense of modal resonance-oriented cyber-attack against wide-area damping control,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 2164–2178, 2024

2024
[19]

Distributed load sharing under false data injection attack in an inverter-based microgrid,

H. Zhang, W. Meng, J. Qi, X. Wang, and W. X. Zheng, “Distributed load sharing under false data injection attack in an inverter-based microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 1543– 1551, 2019

2019
[20]

False data injection attacks against synchronization systems in microgrids,

A. S. Mohamed, M. F. M. Arani, A. A. Jahromi, and D. Kundur, “False data injection attacks against synchronization systems in microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 4471–4483, 2021

2021
[21]

Cyber-secure global operation of grid forming inverters in pinning-based ac microgrid clusters,

S. Jena, A. Mishra, and N. P. Padhy, “Cyber-secure global operation of grid forming inverters in pinning-based ac microgrid clusters,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 2662–2677, 2025

2025
[22]

A reinforcement learning approach to undetectable attacks against automatic generation control,

E. Shereen, K. Kazari, and G. D ´an, “A reinforcement learning approach to undetectable attacks against automatic generation control,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 959–972, 2024

2024
[23]

Load frequency control based on reinforcement learning for microgrids under false data attacks,

S. I. Abouzeid, Y . Chen, M. Zaery, M. A. Abido, A. Raza, and E. H. Abdelhameed, “Load frequency control based on reinforcement learning for microgrids under false data attacks,”Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 123, p. 110093, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045790625000369

2025
[24]

Destabilizing attack and robust defense for inverter-based microgrids by adversarial deep reinforcement learning,

Y . Wang and B. C. Pal, “Destabilizing attack and robust defense for inverter-based microgrids by adversarial deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 4839–4850, 2023

2023
[25]

Vulnerability identification and remediation of fdi attacks in islanded dc microgrids using multiagent reinforcement learning,

A. J. Abianeh, Y . Wan, F. Ferdowsi, N. Mijatovic, and T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, “Vulnerability identification and remediation of fdi attacks in islanded dc microgrids using multiagent reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 6359–6370, 2022

2022
[26]

Dynamic load altering attacks against power system stability: Attack models and protection schemes,

S. Amini, F. Pasqualetti, and H. Mohsenian-Rad, “Dynamic load altering attacks against power system stability: Attack models and protection schemes,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2862– 2872, 2018

2018
[27]

Exploring smart grid vulnerability against intelligent inverter parameter tampering attack,

Z. Yu, M. Liu, and M. Sun, “Exploring smart grid vulnerability against intelligent inverter parameter tampering attack,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 5541–5555, 2025

2025
[28]

Online cyber-attack detection in smart grid: A reinforcement learning approach,

M. N. Kurt, O. Ogundijo, C. Li, and X. Wang, “Online cyber-attack detection in smart grid: A reinforcement learning approach,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 5174–5185, 2019

2019
[29]

CVE-2024-35783: Siemens SIMATIC PCS 7 and WinCC Arbitrary Code Execution,

National Vulnerability Database, “CVE-2024-35783: Siemens SIMATIC PCS 7 and WinCC Arbitrary Code Execution,” https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/ detail/CVE-2024-35783, 2024, accessed: 2025-12-16

2024
[30]

CVE-2024-50694: Sungrow WiNet-S Communication Mod- ule Stack-based Buffer Overflow,

——, “CVE-2024-50694: Sungrow WiNet-S Communication Mod- ule Stack-based Buffer Overflow,” https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/ CVE-2024-50694, 2024, accessed: 2025-12-16

2024
[31]

CVE-2024-1086: Linux Kernel Netfilter Use-After-Free Vulnera- bility,

——, “CVE-2024-1086: Linux Kernel Netfilter Use-After-Free Vulnera- bility,” https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1086, 2024, accessed: 2025-12-16

2024
[32]

Cybersecurity for smart inverters: Guidelines for residential and light commercial solar energy systems,

J. McCarthy, J. Marron, D. Faatz, D. Rebori-Carretero, J. Wiltberger, and N. Urlaub, “Cybersecurity for smart inverters: Guidelines for residential and light commercial solar energy systems,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST Interagency Report NIST IR 8498, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8498

work page doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8498 2024
[33]

Ieee standard for interconnection and interoperability of dis- tributed energy resources with associated electric power systems inter- faces,

IEEE, “Ieee standard for interconnection and interoperability of dis- tributed energy resources with associated electric power systems inter- faces,”IEEE Std 1547-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 1547-2003), pp. 1– 138, 2018

2018
[34]

Impedance-based stability criterion for grid-connected invert- ers,

J. Sun, “Impedance-based stability criterion for grid-connected invert- ers,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 3075– 3078, 2011

2011
[35]

Physics-informed neural network based online impedance identification of voltage source converters,

M. Zhang, Q. Xu, and X. Wang, “Physics-informed neural network based online impedance identification of voltage source converters,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 3717– 3728, 2023

2023
[36]

Few-shot data-driven model- ing of unified grid tied vscs for multioperation impedance identification based on pinn,

H. Li, H. Nian, L. Zhan, B. Hu, and M. Li, “Few-shot data-driven model- ing of unified grid tied vscs for multioperation impedance identification based on pinn,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 6957–6968, 2025

2025
[37]

False data injection on state estimation in power systems—attacks, impacts, and defense: A survey,

R. Deng, G. Xiao, R. Lu, H. Liang, and A. V . Vasilakos, “False data injection on state estimation in power systems—attacks, impacts, and defense: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 411–423, 2017

2017
[38]

Small-signal impedance measurement of power-electronics-based ac power systems using line-to- line current injection,

J. Huang, K. A. Corzine, and M. Belkhayat, “Small-signal impedance measurement of power-electronics-based ac power systems using line-to- line current injection,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 445–455, 2009

2009
[39]

A nearly decoupled admittance model for grid-tied vscs under variable operating conditions,

W. Liu, X. Xie, J. Shair, and X. Li, “A nearly decoupled admittance model for grid-tied vscs under variable operating conditions,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9380–9389, 2020

2020
[40]

Small-signal modeling and parameters design for virtual synchronous generators,

H. Wu, X. Ruan, D. Yang, X. Chen, W. Zhao, Z. Lv, and Q.-C. Zhong, “Small-signal modeling and parameters design for virtual synchronous generators,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 4292–4303, 2016

2016
[41]

Similarity of neural network representations revisited,

S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, H. Lee, and G. Hinton, “Similarity of neural network representations revisited,” inProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, K. Chaudhuri and R. Salakhutdinov, Eds., vol. 97. PMLR, 09–15 Jun 2019, pp. 3519–3529. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr...

2019
[42]

Ieee standard for synchrophasor measurements for power sys- tems,

IEEE, “Ieee standard for synchrophasor measurements for power sys- tems,”IEEE Std C37.118.1-2011 (Revision of IEEE Std C37.118-2005), pp. 1–61, 2011

2011