Cited by 11Network Security and Intrusion DetectionSmart Grid Security and ResilienceAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Space Decoupled Prototype Learning for Few-Shot Attack Detection in Cyber–Physical Systems

Sun, Haili, Huang, Yan, Zhou, Chunjie, Han, Lansheng, Liu, Hongle, Chen, Juan, Li, Xin·2024·IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics

Abstract

Due to the lack of effective attack detection measures, cyberattacks may cause strong damage to industrial cyber–physical systems (CPSs). The embedding of attack categories learned by the existing attack detection methods is highly coupled to each other with fuzzy boundaries and overlapped neighborhood, leading to weak robustness and high false positive rates. To address these issues, in this article, we propose a few-shot attack detection method based on decoupled prototype learning (DPL-FSAD), aiming to enhance the detection accuracy and generalization capabilities for malicious attacks in CPS. Specifically, we first introduce feature contrastive learning to extract differentiated features from highly similar samples, achieving compact intraclass and sparse interclass feature embedding space. To solve the problem of fuzzy boundaries of different attack categories, prototype contrastive learning is then employed to reduce the coupling degree among prototypes and enhance their discriminability. A regularization term is exploited to mitigate the overfitting problem by reducing the gap between the feature embedding and prototypes. Furthermore, an orthogonal constraint is employed to separate prototypes of different attack types, generating a decoupled prototype embedding space. The experimental results on three public cyberattack datasets show that, compared with the suboptimal model a few-shot learning model with Siamese convolutional neural network (FSL-SCNN), the proposed DPL-FSAD can improve the precision by 5.53%,F1-score by 3.3%, and reduce the false positive rate by 2.37% in average, which proves that the space decoupled prototype learning is effective for improving the generalization and robustness of industrial CPS attack detection in few-shot scenario.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tii.2024.3423327

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Supervised statistical classifiers tend to achieve high accuracy when ample labeled attack data are available, whereas unsupervised and semi-supervised methods offer better robustness to previously unseen or zero-day attacks at the expense of slightly lower nominal accuracy.

    “Supervised statistical classifiers tend to achieve high accuracy when ample labeled attack data are available [13,15,17,20,23,25,32,34], whereas unsupervised and semi-supervised methods offer better robustness to previously unseen or zero-day attacks at the expense of slightly lower nominal accuracy [17,20,21,25,28,34].”
  • Hybrid designs that combine unsupervised feature learning with supervised classification or active learning frequently achieve a favorable balance between detection rate, label efficiency, and robustness.

    “Hybrid designs that combine unsupervised feature learning with supervised classification or active learning frequently achieve a favorable balance between detection rate, label efficiency, and robustness [17,23,25,29,34].”
  • Several works attempt to bridge the gap between network statistics and process context by combining network statistics with temporal models or with process-oriented datasets such as SWaT, WADI, BATADAL, and Gas Pipeline, but a full characterization of process-level anomalies still requires complementary process or hybrid data.

    “Several works attempt to bridge this gap by combining network statistics with temporal models or with process-oriented datasets such as SWaT, WADI, BATADAL, and Gas Pipeline [23,25,29,34], but a full characterization of process-level anomalies still requires complementary process or hybrid data, which are analyzed in later subsections.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 11

Authors
Sun, H., Huang, Y., Zhou, C., Han, L., Liu, H., Chen, J., & Li, X.
Affiliations
Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
Published
2024-10
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
12350-12362
ISSN
  • 1551-3203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0050
OpenAlex
W4400679044
Cited by
11
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFB3103402)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62072200, 62172176, 62127808, 61873103, 61433006)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Smart Grid Security and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
cyber-physical systems, prototype contrastive learning, orthogonality constraints, false positive reduction, Siamese convolutional neural network

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