Cited by 48Fault Detection and Control SystemsSmart Grid Security and ResilienceNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

Dataset of anomalies and malicious acts in a cyber-physical subsystem

Open access
Laso, Pedro Merino, Brosset, David, Puentes, John·2017·Data in Brief

Abstract

This article presents a dataset produced to investigate how data and information quality estimations enable to detect aNomalies and malicious acts in cyber-physical systems. Data were acquired making use of a cyber-physical subsystem consisting of liquid containers for fuel or water, along with its automated control and data acquisition infrastructure. Described data consist of temporal series representing five operational scenarios - Normal, aNomalies, breakdown, sabotages, and cyber-attacks - corresponding to 15 different real situations. The dataset is publicly available in the .zip file published with the article, to investigate and compare faulty operation detection and characterization methods for cyber-physical systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dib.2017.07.038

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The dataset distribution for sensor-correlation-based methods shows heavy evaluation on SWaT, WADI, GHL, HAI, TE, and power-system benchmarks (IEEE bus systems), with additional evidence from gas-pipeline, GRFICSv2/Factory I/O, and aNormalies-based testbeds.

    “Finally, the dataset distribution indicates that sensor-correlation-based methods are heavily evaluated on SWaT, WADI, GHL, HAI, TE, and power-system benchmarks (IEEE bus systems), with additional evidence from gas-pipeline, GRFICSv2/Factory I/O, and aNormalies-based testbeds [88-96,98-102,104-110].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laso, P. M., Brosset, D., & Puentes, J.
Affiliations
  • École Navale (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Laso, Pedro Merino
  • Brosset, David
  • Puentes, John
Venue
Data in Brief
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
14
Pages
186-191
ISSN
2352-3409 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2736616122
Cited by
48
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
Type
data paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Data in Brief (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Thales Group
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Smart Grid Security and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
cyber-physical systems, anomaly detection, cyberattacks, data quality estimation, temporal series, liquid containers, automatic control, data acquisition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review