On the Conditional Mutual Information in the Gaussian–Markov Structured Grids

Part of the Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences book series (LNCIS, volume 450)


The Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) State Estimator (SE) and the Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) network constitute the communication infrastructures meant to provide the “smart grid” dispatcher with wide-area bus phase angles and other data from which the operational status of the grid can be assessed—if the measurements are not compromised somewhere along their way to the SCADA dispatch and/or the PMU concentrator. Unfortunately, this is precisely what happens under the so-called “false data injection.” In this chapter, we develop a fast test for measurement data integrity, based on the Gaussian Markov Random Field (GMRF) assumption on the PMU data. This assumption, fundamental to this chapter, is supported by (i) the many fluctuating generations and variable loads justifying the Gaussian distribution assumption and, as more specifically addressed in this chapter, (ii) the DC power flow equations from which an approximate 1-neighbor property of the bus phase angles is derived. The latter topological property refers to the conditional mutual information between two random variables being non-vanishing if and only if the nodes at which they are observed are linked in the edge set of the corresponding graph. Under the Gaussian distribution assumption, the conditional mutual information is easily computable from the conditional covariance. Then it is shown that Conditional Covariance Test (CCT) together with the walk-summability and the local separation property of grid graph allows the reconstruction of the grid graph from uncompromised measurement data. On the other hand, with corrupted data, CCT reconstructs only a proper subset of the edge set of the grid graph, hence triggering the alarm.


  1. 1.
    Abur, A., Exposito, A.: Power System State Estimation, Theory and Implementation. Dekker, New York (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anandkumar, A., Tan, V., Huang, F., Willsky, A.: High-dimensional Gaussian graphical model selection: walk summability and local separation criterion. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13, 2293–2337 (2012) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banirazi, R., Jonckheere, E.: Geometry of power flow in negatively curved power grid. In: 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 6259–6264 (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bishop, C.M.: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer, New York (2006) MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolognani, S., Zampieri, S.: A distributed control strategy for reactive power compensation in smart microgrids. Preprint arXiv:1106.5626, Oct. 2012
  6. 6.
    Borga, M.: Learning multidimensional signal processing. Tech. Rep. SE-581 83, Linköping University, Sweden (1998) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R.: Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. Biostatistics (2007) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, M., Zhang, J.: A dependency graph approach for fault detection and localization towards secure smart grid. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2, 342–351 (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janzamin, M., Anandkumar, A.: High-dimensional covariance decomposition into sparse Markov and independence models. Preprint arXiv:1211.0919, Nov. 2012
  10. 10.
    Jonckheere, E., Wu, B.F.: Mutual Kolmogorov–Sinai entropy approach to nonlinear estimation. In: IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 2226–2232 (1992). Available at http://eudoxus2.usc.edu/CHAOS/Wu_Jonckheere_Mutual Kolmogorov-Sinai.pdf Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larimore, W.E.: Identification and filtering of nonlinear systems using canonical variate analysis. In: Casdagli, M., Eubank, S. (eds.) Nonlinear Modeling and Forecasting. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. 12. Addison–Wesley, Reading (1992) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larimore, W.E., Baillieul, J.: Identification and filtering of nonlinear systems using canonical variate analysis. In: 29th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Honolulu, HI, pp. 635–640 (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lauritzen, S.: Graphical Models. Clarendon, Oxford (1996) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lofberg, J.: YALMIP: a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. In: IEEE International Symposium on Computer Aided Control Systems Design (CACSD) (2004). Available from http://users.isy.liu.se/johanl/yalmip/ Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luettgen, M., Karl, W., Willsky, A., Tenney, R.: Multiscale representations of Markov random fields. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 41, 3377–3396 (1993) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makarychev, K., Makarychev, Y., Romashchenko, A., Vereshchagin, N.: A new class of non-Shannon-type inequalities for entropies. Commun. Inf. Syst. 2(2), 147–166 (2002) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maniglia, S., Rhandi, A.: Gaussian measures on separable Hilbert spaces and applications. Tech. rep., Lecture Notes of the University of Lecce, Italy, Quaderno 1/2004 (2004). ISBN: 88-8305-010-X Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mur-Amada, J., Sallán-Arasanz, J.: From turbine to wind farms—technical requirements and spin-off products. In: Krause, G. (ed.) Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, vol. 18, pp. 101–132. InTech, Rijeka (2011) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prato, G.D.: An Introduction to Infinite-Dimensional Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2000) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ravikumar, P., Wainwright, M., Raskutti, G., Yu, B.: High-dimensional covariance estimation by minimizing 1-penalized log-determinant divergence. Electron. J. Stat. 4, 935–980 (2011) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rue, H., Held, L.: Gaussian Markov Random Fields: Theory and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah, K., Jonckheere, E., Bohacek, S.: Dynamic modeling of Internet traffic for intrusion detection. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2007, 90312 (2007). 14 pp. doi:10.1155/2007/90312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teixeira, A., Dan, G., Sandberg, H., Johansson, K.H.: A cyber security study of a SCADA energy management system: stealthy deception attacks on the state estimator. In: IFAC World Congress (2011) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toh, K.C., Todd, M., Tutuncu, R.H.: SDPT3—a MATLAB software package for semidefinite programming. Optim. Methods Softw. 11, 545–581 (1999) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sánchez, C.E., Thomas, R.J.: Matpower steady-state operations, planning and analysis tools for power systems research and education. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26(1), 12–19 (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations