Towards Secure and Scalable Energy Theft Detection: A Federated Learning Approach for Resource-Constrained Smart Meters
Organizations: DIMES, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy
Abstract
Energy theft poses a significant threat to the stability and efficiency of smart grids, leading to substantial economic losses and operational challenges. Traditional centralized machine learning approaches for theft detection require aggregating user data, raising serious concerns about privacy and data security. These issues are further exacerbated in smart meter environments, where devices are often resource-constrained and lack the capacity to run heavy models. In this work, we propose a privacy-preserving federated learning framework for energy theft detection that addresses both privacy and computational constraints. Our approach leverages a lightweight multilayer perceptron (MLP) model, suitable for deployment on low-power smart meters, and integrates basic differential privacy (DP) by injecting Gaussian noise into local model updates before aggregation. This ensures formal privacy guarantees without compromising learning performance. We evaluate our framework on a real-world smart meter dataset under both IID and non-IID data distributions. Experimental results demonstrate that our method achieves competitive accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC scores while maintaining privacy and efficiency. This makes the proposed solution practical and scalable for secure energy theft detection in next-generation smart grid infrastructures.
Figures & tables
| Aspect | FedDetect [ 5 ] | FL-CNN [ 8 ] | HeteroFL [ 9 ] | [ 6 ] | FedGrid [ 7 ] | Our Proposed Method |
| Model Type | Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) | CNN-B (Convolutional with bias correction) | Hybrid CNN-LSTM | Multiple models (LogReg, FFNN, 1D-CNN, Autoencoder, RNN, LSTM, GRU) | DSS-LSTM (Deep State Space LSTM) for forecasting | Lightweight MLP (Multi-layer Perceptron) |
| Privacy Mechanism | Local Differential Privacy (K-RR) + Homomorphic Encryption + CL* Signatures | No formal privacy mechanism; relies on data locality | CKKS Homomorphic Encryption + Shamir Secret Sharing | SSL/TLS encryption on parameter updates | Federated Learning (privacy by design) only; no DP or HE used | Basic Differential Privacy (Gaussian noise on model updates) |
| Secure Aggregation | Cryptographic protocol using ECC and bilinear pairing | Standard FedAvg in Flower framework | Multi-party secure protocol with secret sharing | SSL-secured FedAvg (no cryptographic aggregation) | Standard FedAvg; secure transport assumed but not formalized | Standard federated averaging with DP noise |
| Class Imbalance Handling | Not addressed explicitly | SMOTE + weighted loss | Attentional prototype learning + class-weighted loss | SMOTE-NC for mixed feature types | Not addressed | Not addressed explicitly |
| Data Distribution Support | IID only | IID only (after SMOTE) | Non-IID via clustering (k-means) | Both IID and non-IID (via random sampling) | IID only (not tested with non-IID) | Both IID and non-IID via sampling |
| Hardware Suitability | Mid-range edge servers or DTSs with cryptographic capabilities | Edge devices (Raspberry Pi-level) | Requires moderate compute (smart substations) | Raspberry Pi (smart meter prototype) | Tested on NVIDIA Jetson Nano; targets mid-tier edge hardware | Optimized for resource-constrained smart meters |
| Clients | Distribution | Clients | Samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | IID | Client 0 | 12696 (Label 0: 11643, Label 1: 1053) |
| Client 1 | 12696 (Label 0: 11671, Label 1: 1025) | ||
| non-IID | Client 0 | 12696 (Label 0: 11657, Label 1: 1039) | |
| Client 1 | 12696 (Label 0: 11657, Label 1: 1039) | ||
| 3 | IID | Client 0 | 8464 (Label 0: 7752, Label 1: 712) |
| Client 1 | 8464 (Label 0: 7785, Label 1: 679) |
| Reference | Clients | Loss | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | AUC-ROC | Communication Cost (MB) | BW Reduction (MB) |
| Centralized MLP | - | 0.2439 | 91.93 | 65.62 | 11.62 | 19.75 | 81.50 | - | 100.06 |
| FLDetect [ 5 ] | 2 | - | 91.98 | 91.00 | 90.98 | 40.18 | - | - | 57.0 |
| 5 | - | 92.58 | 91.03 | 92.58 | 36.07 | - | - | 10.32 | |
| FL-CNN [ 8 ] | 2 | - | 87.75 | 91.90 | 87.75 | 49.29 | - | - | 69.8 |
| 5 | - | 80.53 | 90.34 | 80.53 | 37.11 | - | - | 23.12 | |
| Our Proposed Method | 2 (IID) | 0.0962 | 97.69 | 88.89 | 82.05 | 97.65 | 98.12 | 122.07 | 37.93 |
Federated Learning
Federated learning trains shared models across data holders without requiring them to pool their raw data.
See all 943 papers