Cited by 49Network Security and Intrusion DetectionAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsSoftware System Performance and Reliability

Digital Twin-based Anomaly Detection with Curriculum Learning in Cyber-physical Systems

Open access
Xu, Qinghua, Ali, Shaukat, Yue, Tao·2023·ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Abstract

Anomaly detection is critical to ensure the security of cyber-physical systems (CPS) . However, due to the increasing complexity of attacks and CPS themselves, anomaly detection in CPS is becoming more and more challenging. In our previous work, we proposed a digital twin-based anomaly detection method, called ATTAIN, which takes advantage of both historical and real-time data of CPS. However, such data vary significantly in terms of difficulty. Therefore, similar to human learning processes, deep learning models (e.g., ATTAIN) can benefit from an easy-to-difficult curriculum. To this end, in this paper, we present a novel approach, named digitaL twin-based Anomaly deTecTion wIth Curriculum lEarning ( LATTICE ) , which extends ATTAIN by introducing curriculum learning to optimize its learning paradigm. LATTICE attributes each sample with a difficulty score, before being fed into a training scheduler. The training scheduler samples batches of training data based on these difficulty scores such that learning from easy to difficult data can be performed. To evaluate LATTICE, we use five publicly available datasets collected from five real-world CPS testbeds. We compare LATTICE with ATTAIN and two other state-of-the-art anomaly detectors. Evaluation results show that LATTICE outperforms the three baselines and ATTAIN by 0.906%-2.367% in terms of the F1 score. LATTICE also, on average, reduces the training time of ATTAIN by 4.2% on the five datasets and is on par with the baselines in terms of detection delay time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3582571

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, Q., Ali, S., & Yue, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Simula Research Laboratory (NO)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Published
2023-07-22
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
1-32
ISSN
  • 1049-331X (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7392
OpenAlex
W4319037055
Cited by
49
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Research Council of Norway (270053)
  • Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research
  • European Commission (871319)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
anomaly detection, cyber-physical systems, digital twin, curriculum learning, lattices, cyber-physical security, attack detection, training time reduction

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