Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 0

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detection of Cyber Attacks in Critical Infrastructure Systems Using Deep Learning Approaches

Gümüş, Hamza Talha, Erten, Mustafa Yasin, Aydilek, Hüseyin·2026·Periodica Polytechnica Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Abstract

Ensuring the security of industrial control systems (ICS) and cyber-physical systems (CPS) is increasingly challenging due to the integration of real-time data flows, interconnected sensors, and evolving cyber threats. This study presents a comparative evaluation of five deep learning architectures – CNN1D, CNN-LSTM, AE-CNN, GNN-CNN, and AutoGraph-TConv – across six heterogeneous datasets: SWaT, BATADAL, BoT-IoT, EUROPEC, MEDSEC, and MSCAD. Unlike many previous studies that focus on a single model or dataset, a unified benchmarking framework is employed to assess model generalizability across diverse ICS environments. The experimental pipeline incorporates standardized preprocessing, normalization, chronological data splitting, and multi-metric evaluation using Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-score, AUROC, and AUPRC. Results demonstrate that dataset characteristics significantly influence model performance. Reconstruction-based architectures, particularly AE-CNN, show greater effectiveness on physical-process datasets such as SWaT, while graph-temporal architectures provide superior performance on network-centric datasets. AE-CNN achieved the highest F1-score of 0.509 on SWaT, CNN1D achieved an F1-score of 0.620 on BATADAL, CNN-LSTM achieved an F1-score of 0.935 on EUROPEC, and graph-temporal models (AutoGraph-TConv and GNN-CNN) attained near-perfect performance (F1 ≈ 1.000) on BoT-IoT, MEDSEC, and MSCAD. The findings indicate that data separability and process complexity are key factors influencing anomaly detection performance. Rather than proposing a new architecture, this work provides a comprehensive benchmarking framework that clarifies the relationship between dataset characteristics and model suitability for ICS anomaly detection.

Overview

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 · 10.3311/ppee.43471

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Gümüş, H. T., Erten, M. Y., & Aydilek, H.
Venue
Periodica Polytechnica Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Published
2026-06-08
Volume
70
Issue
1
Pages
42-51
ISSN
  • 2064-5279
  • 2064-5260
Cited by
0
References
1

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.