Journal of

Sensor and
Actuator Networks

Article
Edge Intelligence in Smart Grids: A Survey on Architectures,
Offloading Models, Cyber Security Measures, and Challenges
Daisy Nkele Molokomme 1, * , Adeiza James Onumanyi 2 and Adnan M. Abu-Mahfouz 1,2
1 Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Pretoria,
Pretoria 0028, South Africa
2 Next Generation Enterprises and Institutions, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
Pretoria 0001, South Africa
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The rapid development of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) and
the deployment of advanced Internet of Things (IoT)-based devices has led to the study and imple-
mentation of edge computing technologies in smart grid (SG) systems. In addition, substantial work
has been expended in the literature to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) techniques into edge
computing, resulting in the promising concept of edge intelligence (EI). Consequently, in this article,
we provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art in terms of EI-based SG adoption from a range
of angles, including architectures, computation offloading, and cybersecurity concerns. The basic
objectives of this article are fourfold. To begin, we discuss EI and SGs separately. Then we highlight
contemporary concepts closely related to edge computing, fundamental characteristics, and essential
enabling technologies from an EI perspective. Additionally, we discuss how the use of AI has aided
in optimizing the performance of edge computing. We have emphasized the important enabling
technologies and applications of SGs from the perspective of EI-based SGs. Second, we explore both



general edge computing and architectures based on EI from the perspective of SGs. Thirdly, two basic


questions about computation offloading are discussed: what is computation offloading and why do
Citation: Molokomme, D.N.; we need it? Additionally, we divided the primary articles into two categories based on the number of
Onumanyi, A.J.; Abu-Mahfouz, A.M.
users included in the model, either a single user or a multiple user instance. Finally, we review the
Edge Intelligence in Smart Grids: A
cybersecurity threats with edge computing and the methods used to mitigate them in SGs. Therefore,
Survey on Architectures, Offloading
this survey comes to the conclusion that most of the viable architectures for EI in smart grids often
Models, Cyber Security Measures,
and Challenges. J. Sens. Actuator
consist of three layers: device, edge, and cloud. In addition, it is crucial that computation offloading
Netw. 2022, 11, 47. https://doi.org/ techniques must be framed as optimization problems and addressed effectively in order to increase
10.3390/jsan11030047 system performance. This article typically intends to serve as a primer for emerging and interested
scholars concerned with the study of EI in SGs.
Academic Editor: Mingjun Xiao

Received: 20 June 2022 Keywords: computation offloading; cyber security; edge computing; edge intelligence; internet of
Accepted: 16 August 2022 things; smart grid
Published: 21 August 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
1. Introduction
iations. Smart grids (SG) are widely recognized as the “next-generation power grids” com-
prising sophisticated cyber-secured information and communication technologies (ICT),
bidirectional information and electricity infrastructure, and network-integrated com-
putational intelligence [1–3]. The concept of SGs evolved around the year 2000 as a
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. feasible solution to the substantial challenges connected with the old (legacy) power
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
grid system [4–6]. Among these difficulties are a lack of automated analysis, insufficient
This article is an open access article
accessibility, a lack of situational awareness, and slow response times [7]. To put things
distributed under the terms and
into context, legacy electrical grids were developed, planned, built, and deployed decades
conditions of the Creative Commons
ago in a significantly different political, social, and technological environment than exists
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
now [8]. However, with the passage of time, it is evident that aging infrastructures have
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
played a major role in the decline of these grids, in addition to other inherent characteristics

J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan11030047 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jsan

J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 2 of 50

such as their one-way communication structure, centralized generation, restricted sensors,

manual restoration, and limited monitoring capabilities [9,10]. However, despite the fact
that legacy power systems have seen little to no alteration in decades, the number of
customers connected to the grids continues to grow at a rapid pace. As a result, the design
and development of new infrastructure is critical to resolving the aforementioned issues.
Essentially, SGs are aimed at improving energy generation, transmission, and distri-
bution by connecting intelligent monitoring, two-way communication, control, and self-
healing technologies with innovative products and services [8]. Another advantage of SGs
is their new enabling network management strategies, which provide for the use of dis-
tributed generation (DG) in demand side management (DSM), energy storage for DG load
balancing, and for the deployment of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) for two-way
communication between consumers, prosumers, and control centers [10]. Additionally, SGs
enable a complete paradigm change from the old communication infrastructure to a contem-
porary electric grid architecture capable of increased sensing, sophisticated communication,
and computation.
Smart devices (e.g., smart meters, sensors, and smart electrical appliances) are utilized
in SGs to generate data via different applications and services. Currently, many SG designs
rely significantly on cloud computing to store, analyse, and process data in preparation
for future control commands and decision-making purposes [1,11,12]. However, existing
traditional cloud computing platforms, on the other hand, have a number of shortcomings,
including large communication latency, network and deployment complexities, all of which
restrict their use in real-time applications [13]. Various strategies have been proposed
in the literature to overcome the aforementioned problems of cloud computing services.
These techniques are nonetheless subject to a number of constraints as a result of the
foundational architecture of the cloud computing framework. Some of these constraints
include efficiency, privacy, and security, amongst others. In a bid to address these issues,
the authors of [14] proposed a heuristic algorithm in an attempt to intelligently optimize
the energy efficiency across geographically distant data centers that are connected by
cloud networks. Similarly, optimization strategies were used to solve the issue of power
consumption in cloud infrastructure in [15].
To further solve these issues effectively in traditional cloud computing, edge comput-
ing was introduced recently. This developing paradigm of edge computing goes beyond the
concept of re-evaluating cloud computing and aims for a dramatic movement away from
distance storage and processing centers in order to reduce latency and cost, as well as to
improve security and dependability [16]. Specifically, the term “edge computing” refers to
the process of transferring certain storage and computation resources away from a remote
central data center (cloud) and closer to the data source. The technological improvements in
smart IoT and mobile devices allows for the development of new applications and services
that meet these evolving demands. As computing and storage capabilities migrate closer
to the edge, some edge devices may struggle to run high-intensity applications and ser-
vices due to their low battery capacity and energy consumption characteristics [17]. Thus,
an appropriate solution has been established, which is based on the concept of computa-
tion offloading. This strategy entails offloading high computational or latency-sensitive
operations to edge devices or servers in order to comply with quality of service (QoS)
requirements [18,19]. However, such a strategy being implemented in a highly diverse
and distributed edge computing network ultimately raises concerns regarding security
and privacy issues. Thus, as a possible solution to the aforementioned issues, the sub-
ject of artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to garner research interest in both academia
and industry.
To this effect, the collaborative integration of AI with edge computing has sufficed as
a suitable solution to a number of issues associated with conventional edge computing,
such as limited computational power, processing capabilities, security, and storage capacity
problems. Such a convergence of AI with edge computing is referred to as edge intelligence
(EI) [5,20–26]. EI is not only the fusion of these two terminologies, but more of a broad and
complex subject area that encompasses a wide variety of concepts and technologies [22].
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 3 of 50

Presently, the deployment of EI in SGs is still in its infancy. However, by locating

computing capabilities closer to data sources, edge intelligence promises to optimize the
overall network performance of SG networks in terms of lowering their network processing
and maintenance costs, easing the strain of data transfer via network backhauls, and en-
abling rapid decisions [5,27]. To this effect, instead of transferring raw data (generated by
computationally expensive processes) directly to the cloud, EI will consist of incorporating
intelligent elements into edge devices that will serve to process and analyze the data gen-
erated locally. However, despite the fact that EI promises great potentials for SG systems,
there are several limitations inherent in contemporary AI systems that may limit its use.
Among these problems are those relating to security and privacy issues. In this regard,
several publications have explored the application of blockchain technologies to solve these
cybersecurity concerns [28–30]. Despite the number of surveys on edge intelligence, to the
best of our knowledge, an extensive review that simultaneously explores the convergence
of EI and SGs in terms of architectures, offloading models, and cybersecurity measures
has not yet been undertaken. Thus, this article aims to provide an overview of the current
state of the art in terms of EI-based SG adoption from these three main angles, and these
contributions are summarized as follows:
1. We have provided a synthesis of the most recent studies on the application of EI
in SGs. It was discovered that the literature lacked a survey of this nature, and the
purpose of the current article is to address this gap, particularly for the benefit of
researchers who may interested in developing some knowledge about the subject.
2. We conducted a detailed overview of edge computing architectures and those based
on EI for deployment in SGs. Due to the paucity of comprehensive EI-based designs
for SG latency-sensitive applications in the existing literature, we also discussed a
deployment-friendly architecture for the integration of EI in SGs.
3. We highlighted and emphasized a number of critical cybersecurity issues linked with
edge computing, as well as discussed some available solutions to these challenges in
SG applications. We provided additional details on how machine learning algorithms
and blockchain technologies were used to solve these problems.
4. We discussed the current challenges that are associated with SGs and EI, which have
surfaced as a result of the confluence of these two ideas. These challenges include
communication at the edge, big data processing, resource management, and effective
big data offloading, to mention a few of them. These difficulties and possible paths
for the future are presented with an intention to aid the development of potential
solutions regarding the adoption of EI in SGs.
A general view of the article’s organizational structure is shown in Figure 1, which
is further summarized as follows: we discuss related survey articles in Section 2, which
is entirely focused on establishing the uniqueness of our article. To establish context for
our survey, we provide in Section 3 an in-depth overview of EI and SGs from a variety
of perspectives, including important enabling technologies, features, and applications.
Following that, in Section 4 we review appropriate architectures for implementing EI
in SGs and presented an EI-based architecture for SGs applications. Additionally, key
general concepts relating to computation offloading were examined in Section 5, including
what and why we require computation offloading and the classification of computation
offloading (i.e., multiple user and single user scenarios). Section 6 examines cybersecurity
concerns and solutions for SGs powered by EI. In Section 7, we discuss research challenges
and future research. Finally, in Section 8, we summarize and give concluding remarks on
our survey.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 4 of 50

Background
Research Trends
Sec I: Introduction
Motivations
Contributions
Sec II: Related Surveys Existing Surveys
Edge Computing
Edge Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence
Sec III: Overview of
Edge Intelligence and
Smart Grids Key Enabling Technologies
Smart Grids
Applications

Sec IV: Architectures General Architecture

for Deploying Edge
Intelligence in Smart
Grids Existing Edge Intelligence-Based Architectures

Sec V: Computation What is Computation Offloading

Offloading for Edge
Why Do We Need Computation Offloading
Intelligence in Smart
Grids Classifications Multi-User Case
of Computation
Offloading Single User Case

Sec VI: Cyber Security Security Challenges

Challenges and Solutions
in Edge Intelligence-
Based Smart Grids Key Approaches to Solving Cyber Security Issues

Sec VII: Research Challenges

and Future Directions

Sec VIII: Conclusions

Figure 1. Paper organization structure.

2. Related Surveys
In this section, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of some of the most impor-
tant survey publications that are primarily concerned with the convergence of EI and SGs.
In recent years, a few survey articles, as highlighted in Table 1, have attempted to explore
contemporary SG issues and how the incorporation of EI might aid in alleviating them.
The selection criteria of articles considered in our survey focused on the current re-
search works dealing with edge intelligence in smart grids. The following is an explanation
of the approach that was utilized in the selection of the papers:
1. The keywords that characterize our area of interest were noted, namely “architectures”,
“computation offloading”, “edge intelligence”, “smart grids”, “security”, and these
were used to search within the Scopus and Google Scholar database among others
that were taken into consideration.
2. The search process returned more than 16,700 hits, which were then narrowed down
based on the period covered within the last decade. In addition, these hits were
improved based on the following important categories: “architectures”, “offload-
ing procedures”, and “security”. These keywords were used to manually narrow
down our selection to around 250 articles, of which 234 were included in this article.
The articles omitted were those that did not contribute directly to our area of interest.
3. Furthermore, all survey articles found within this narrowed list were then culled
and analyzed to establish the originality of the current article, for which we will now
discuss these related survey articles.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 5 of 50

Table 1. Summary of Related Surveys.

Survey Articles Year Highlights

• Survey on AI techniques to render EVs in SGs
• Identify the commonalities and key differences in the approaches
Rigas et al. [31] 2014
• Develop classification of key technologies
• Develop benchmarks for state-of-the-art
• Analyze case studies based on distribution networks monitoring
Meloni et al. [23] 2018 • State-of-the-art solutions
• Demonstrate the performance of Cloud-IoT-based architectural solution for SE in SG
• Systematic review on the research trend of actual implementations of edge and fog computing for SG applications
Gilbert et al. [32] 2019
• Investigate the challenges hindering adoption of fog and edge computing in SG
• Comprehensive survey of existing cyber security solutions for fog-based SG SCADA systems
• Overview of architecture and the concept of fog-based SG SCADA
Ferrag et al. [33] 2020
• Summarize informal and formal security analysis techniques
• Provides taxonomy of attacks mitigated by privacy-preserving and authentication solutions
• Identify elements in existing works to define cloud-based architecture
Rosero et al. [34] 2021 • Revise and run microgrid real-time simulation platforms
• Presents scalable and autonomous cloud-based architecture for forecasting, consumption, etc using ML techniques
• Comprehensive review of interdisciplinary research on EC applications in SG
• In-depth analysis of EC is conducted from SG perspective
Feng et al. [35] 2021
• Systematically explores application scenarios of EC in SG
• Assisted synergistic effect of the integration of EC and SG
• Investigate EC solutions for the SG
Slama [5] 2021 • Comprehensive review on emerging issues of EC in SG
• Extensively covers techniques to improve reader awareness on prosumer SG system
• Comprehensive review of SG systems based on IoT and EC
• Development in the rising technologies
Mehmood et al. [6] 2021
• Framework for EC-IoT based SG is examined
• Requirements to implement EC-IoT SG system are outlined
• Introduce AI-based algorithms for multi-access EC for benchmark microgrid performance optimization
Li et al. [36] 2021 • Present online dual-network-based action-dependent heuristic dynamic programming method
• Apply optimal control strategy to a benchmark microgrid system
• Provide an overview for how EC and EI can supplement AMI applications
Hudson et al. [24] 2021 • FL-based architecture to empower distributed data processing
• Demonstrate the efficacy of the architecture using NILM
• Comprehensive discussion on the key infrastructures
• Systematic overview on how IoT drives the digitization of transactive EI
Wu et al. [37] 2021
• Discussion on how to implement digitization and decentralization of transactive EI such as AMI
• Highlights challenges and future trends from cyber space point of view
• Thorough review on the state-of-the-art advances of DL in SG systems
• Bibliometric analysis
Massaoudi et al. [38] 2021
• Taxonomy of the trending DL algorithms
• DL enabling technologies (FL, EI and distributed computing) in SG

EI has dominated the majority of the research undertaken thus far in terms of devel-
oping and constructing resilient SG infrastructures. This is due to the importance and
sensitivity of the data generated by SG applications. Consequently, AI approaches that
operate well with the edge computing paradigm need be studied thoroughly before they
can be deployed in practical SG use cases. Thus, the authors in [31] conducted a detailed
study of AI approaches that may be suited for the application of EI in SG. Specifically, they
discussed the difficulties that often arise from using AI to jointly manage the distribution
of electric vehicles (EVs) in SG networks.
In a related article, the authors in [23] analysed several case studies that are based on
the concept of distribution network monitoring. They also introduced a cloud-IoT-based ar-
chitecture solution for estimating SG state. Nonetheless, despite the benefits of SG network
operation, there are a number of issues that require rapid research and development atten-
tion from both academia and industry. Towards this end, the authors in [32] reviewed the
research trend of actual edge and fog computing solutions for SG applications. The limits
of various computing paradigms were also investigated. It was noted that the evolution
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 6 of 50

of architectural solutions from cloud-based [23] to edge-based [32] and cyber-based [33] is
certainly necessary on the electrical energy frontiers. Similarly, the authors in [33] presented
a survey of research on some of the cyber security solutions for fog-based SG supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. In addition, an introduction to the architec-
ture and idea of fog-based SG SCADA was presented. This, however, was restricted to the
cyber security challenges typically encountered by SCADA systems. They also examined
current informal and formal security studies in the literature, as well as created a taxonomy
of threats addressed by privacy-preserving and authentication methods. Similarly, the re-
view presented in [34] examined modifications to microgrid real-time simulation with the
help of ML. Their goal was to identify a scalable and autonomous cloud-based architecture
that improves forecasting and consumption through the use of ML techniques.
Recently, edge computing has garnered considerable interest as a potential solution for
mitigating some of the fundamental difficulties confronting SG. It achieves this by bringing
computing operations executed in the remote Internet cloud closer to end users. According
to some of the theoretical assumptions established in the literature, this concept promises
to minimise data transmission time while simultaneously increasing bandwidth usage,
among other advantages. The authors in [35] conducted a rigorous and comprehensive
assessment of the multidisciplinary research of edge computing applications in SGs. They
extensively investigated application possibilities available in the edge computing literature
in SG. Similarly, the review in [5] explored edge computing solutions for SG. A detailed
analysis of the growing difficulties and the implementation of edge computing in SG were
also emphasized. The survey, however, was limited to prosumers in SG systems. Instead
of focusing solely on edge computing and SG, the authors in [6] thoroughly analysed
SG systems from an IoT and edge computing standpoint. They also emphasized the
prerequisites for implementing edge computing-IoT-based SG systems.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the introduction of edge computing has the po-
tential to greatly transform SG applications. Nevertheless, although edge computing has
demonstrated remarkable performance in a variety of applications, it still faces significant
limitations that restrict its potential to be used in real-time applications. Considering the
potentials that surround the coordination of AI in real-time applications, researchers are
now investigating its benefits in the context of edge computing [24,36–39]. For example,
in Ref. [36], an introduction to AI-based methods for multi-access edge computing for
benchmarking microgrid performance optimization was presented. In addition, their study
offered an optimum control technique that was implemented on a benchmark microgrid
system. In a different article, an outline of how edge computing and EI may be used
together to improve AMI applications was presented [24]. In addition, a federated learning
(FL)-based architecture for enabling distributed data processing in AMI was demonstrated.
Because IoT is essential in delivering EI benefits, the authors in [37] undertook a compre-
hensive examination of how this notion encourages transactive EI digitization. Based on
EI, they also performed a complete evaluation of certain existing critical infrastructure.
They discussed how to adopt digitalization and decentralization of transactive EI such as
AMI. To realize the benefits of SG deployment, DL supporting technologies such as FL, EI,
and distributed computing were shown in an SG context.
Although the emergence of EI has been studied in a variety of business domains,
the same cannot be said for the frontiers of electrical energy. To the best of our knowledge,
the convergence of EI and SGs remains a budding research area with limited survey articles
available on the subject matter. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to contribute by
conducting an in-depth survey of key concepts in this area.

3. Overview of Edge Intelligence and Smart Grid

This section provides an overview of EI and SG and the necessity to deploy EI in the
next-generation power grids. To begin, we will define EI by examining various elements
of edge computing such as its characteristics, important enabling technologies, and its
emerging advantages. Then, we will provide a general discussion of SGs.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 7 of 50

3.1. Edge Intelligence

Edge intelligence (EI) refers to the combination of artificial intelligence (AI) with edge
computing [40,41]. Thus, in order to comprehend EI, it is essential to consider separately
the concept of edge computing and AI. On the one hand, edge computing describes the
process of extending computing, storage, and communication resources from a centralized
cloud server to the edge of a network [19,42]. The purpose of edge computing is to provide
mobile applications with real-time access to the radio network while maintaining ultra-
low latency and high bandwidth capabilities. On the other hand, we have witnessed a
transformation in recent years due to the widespread use of AI in a number of application
areas. Consequently, as a result of the rapid growth of both of these areas (edge computing
and AI), researchers and developers are continuously looking for newer ways to investigate
them jointly [20,22,25,41,43–45]. This convergence of interest in AI and edge computing
has resulted in the emergence of EI. However, before delving into EI in detail, a brief
explanation of edge computing and its associated computing paradigms will serve as a
basis for comprehending the concept of EI.

3.1.1. Edge Computing

Edge computing refers to the process of relocating certain storage and computation
resources out from the central data center and closer to the data source [46]. Rather
than send raw data to the central cloud server for processing and analysis (as in cloud
computing), such data are analyzed closer to the source of the data (network edge). Thus,
only the outcomes of such edge computing operations, such as real-time business analytics,
equipment repair projections, or other actionable responses are routed directly to the central
cloud server for scrutiny and perhaps for other human interaction purposes. To have a
better understanding of edge computing, it is necessary to emphasize other closely related
concepts that are often mistaken for edge computing. These related concepts are discussed
in the next subsection.

Concepts Closely Related to Edge Computing

Due to the fact that some aspects of edge computing overlap with other related com-
puting paradigms such as fog computing, mobile edge computing, and cloudlet computing,
as illustrated in Figure 2, some researchers have frequently used these paradigms inter-
changeably [19,35]. As a consequence, because they are not precisely the same, these
different concepts may generate some misunderstanding among readers. By and large,
these related paradigms were developed to address the issues inherent in cloud computing,
such as latency, complexity, and security. However, there have been some misconceptions
about how these various paradigms differ from one another.

Figure 2. Different closely related concepts to the paradigm of edge computing.

J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 8 of 50

Consequently, we present a brief discussion of how these paradigms might be charac-

terized in terms of their relationship with cloud computing, applications, and the location of
computational resources. Furthermore, we emphasize their advantages and disadvantages
from a computing standpoint. These are discussed as follows:
(i) Mobile Ad hoc: Originally, a mobile ad hoc cloud was proposed as a potentially
transformative solution to the issues inherent in the traditional cloud model. This
concept consists of many mobile cloudlets (nearby mobile servers) that are utilized
by mobile end users (i.e., smart phones, tablets, etc.) to offload intensive computa-
tional workloads in an ad hoc manner [47]. Additionally, it promises to accelerate
the execution of computationally intensive operations and minimize the energy con-
sumed by devices. Due to its self-configuration and self-maintenance characteristics,
this paradigm has attracted significant interest in the frontiers of communication
technologies over the last decades.
However, despite its advantages, mobile ad hoc networking has some significant
issues, including the lack of an open network architecture, shared wireless medium,
resource constraints, and a highly dynamic network topology [48]. Furthermore,
due to the shared nature of the mobile ad hoc architecture, security is one of the
most crucial challenges in this concept. Various articles have attempted to address
these issues in a variety of ways. For example, the authors in [49] have proposed an
enforced cooperative bait detection scheme (CBDS).
(ii) Cloudlet: Cloudlet, like other post-cloud computing concepts, may be viewed as an
extension of the standard cloud. This paradigm is comprised of relatively small-scale
mobility support clouds located near mobile end-users. It was created primarily
to reduce the computation offloading latency across wide area networks (WANs).
Existing work from around 2009 is included among the early work on cloudlet [50].
They have also established the cloudlet concept as a typical intermediate layer in a
three-tier architecture. The architecture, as the name implies, is composed of three
tiers: end-device, an edge cloud platform, and a centralized data center [51]. Funda-
mentally, cloudlet is used to alleviate pressure on the remote Internet cloud by shifting
computation resources to mobile devices with minimal latency.
The key benefit of cloudlets is their capacity to support mobility. A typical cloudlet
consists of a server and wireless access points that are linked together through a local
area network (LAN) [52]. Given the distributed nature of these cloudlets, managing
large numbers of cloudlets in an efficient and effective manner remains a significant
difficulty. Furthermore, cloudlets suffer from a number of challenges, including net-
work capacity and backhaul linkages, as a result of the rapid growth in the demand for
multimedia services [53]. The authors in [54] provided a thorough survey of existing
works entirely focused on cloudlet-based mobile computing. Whereas, in a separate
article, a secured cloudlet-based recommendation system for EVs was presented [55].
(iii) Fog Computing: In comparison to other existing post-cloud computing paradigms,
fog computing appears to be the most popular, along with edge computing. The
authors of [16] conducted a thorough study on these emerging paradigms with focus
on performance metrics. The ability of these two paradigms to support the introduc-
tion of new IoT applications such as smart cities, SGs, EVs, and wireless sensor and
actuator networks is the primary reason for their increased popularity. Furthermore,
they are both known for their essential feature of shifting from a centralized to a
decentralized architecture in which computation services are performed close to end-
users rather than in the cloud. For these reasons, most researchers have been using
these paradigms interchangeably, despite the fact that they are not identical [24,56].
As with Zhang and Tao [57], we also distinguish these concepts for the sake of clarity.
According to the OpenFog Consortium [58], these paradigms can be distinguished
based on where the intelligence and computing power are executed.
For example, fog computing can enable computing, networking, storage, control,
and acceleration anywhere from the cloud to end-devices (on the network side),
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 9 of 50

whereas edge computing may only be capable of performing these functions at the
edge (end node side). In general, fog computing has been recognized as a form of
edge computing. Cisco defines fog computing as a highly virtualized platform that
provides computing, storage, and networking services between end devices and
traditional cloud computing data centers, which are typically but not exclusively
located at the network’s edge [59]. The term “fog computing” is distinct due to the
fact that, literally, we consider fog in the natural geological environment as being
closer to people than clouds [53].
According to the literature, fog computing has been integrated into various business
domains with the goal of addressing a variety of challenges. For example, the authors
in [60] have provided a detailed classification of fog computing applications such as
smart cities, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) from a machine learning
(ML) perspective, with the goal of facilitating decision-making. An investigation into
how to deal with security and privacy issues was conducted in [61,62]. The authors
of [63] proposed a fog computing-based framework for SG applications (microgrid
to be specific). Hussain and Beg highlighted the importance of integrating fog com-
puting as a supporting technology for real-time SG data analytics [64]. In summary,
the devices used in the fog computing-based architecture are not programmed to
conduct any computation functions, but instead to serve as the network’s data ac-
quisition component while the analysis of data is performed in the gateway. As a
result, fog computing experiences significant challenges such as latency and inefficient
bandwidth utilization [65].
(iv) Mist Computing: Mist computing can be thought of as a lightweight version of fog
computing that is located very close to the network edge [66]. This paradigm serves
as a bridge between the fog and IoT tiers, with the goal of bringing fog computing
functions even closer to end users. As a result, the traditional fog computing architec-
ture experiences less data transmission delay. Mist computing, such as fog computing,
is often referred to as edge computing, which is not the case [66]. Mist computing
occurs at the network’s extreme edge, which is comprised of microcontrollers and
sensors. In this instance, mist computing involves the use of microcomputers and mi-
crocontrollers to offer processed data as input to fog computing nodes and, ultimately,
towards cloud computing services. This paradigm aims to reduce latency and traffic
issues by allowing processed data at the network’s edge to be transmitted to the cloud
storage system via the network’s fog nodes.
(v) Mobile Edge Computing: According to the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute (ETSI), mobile edge computing (MEC) is a new platform that provides in-
formation technology (IT) and cloud computing capabilities within the radio access
network (RAN) near mobile subscribers [18]. This paradigm was first realized in 2013
by IBM and Nokia Siemens. The authors in [51] have provided a detailed discussion
of the evolution of this paradigm. Because of the benefits provided by MEC, the Eu-
ropean fifth generation (5G) infrastructure public-private partnerships (PPP) have
identified it as one of the next-generation 5G networks that will massively revolu-
tionize mobile network intelligence. Reduced latency, improved energy efficiency for
mobile devices, power saving mechanisms, support for context-awareness, and im-
proved privacy and security for mobile applications are some of the primary benefits
of MEC. These advantages stem from the critical role of this computing paradigm,
which shifts data-intensive tasks to the edge and concurrently executes data process-
ing near end-users rather than in a centralized cloud. As a result, there are fewer
bottlenecks in the core, and heavy computational tasks are offloaded to the edge via
network operators [51].
Table 2 summarizes the important distinctions between cloud, fog, and edge comput-
ing (all of which are the most prominent ideas considered for SG purposes).
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 10 of 50

Table 2. Comparison of Cloud, Fog, and Edge Computing.

Metrics Cloud Fog Edge

Deployment Centralized Decentralized Decentralized
Distance from end users Huge Small Extremely small
Computational Power Pervasive Limited Limited
Efficiency Low High Extremely High
Latency High Low Ultra-low
Processing Location Core Fog server Edge server
Storage Capacity Pervasive Limited Limited
Privacy and Security Low Low High
Mobility support No Yes Yes
Processing Capability Pervasive Limited Limited

Essential Features of Edge Computing

Generally, edge computing can be characterized by the following features:
(i) Computing and Networking: Edge computing allows for advanced IT and network
infrastructures to be shifted to the network’s edge, thus allowing computing and
storage to take place close to where data are generated.
(ii) Storage: In the edge computing framework, computing and storage devices such as
cloudlets, fog nodes, or micro-data centers are deployed at the base station, which
is located near the end-devices, to avoid obstructions and network failures. This has
the potential to significantly contribute to the success of SG deployment because it
promises to reduce data transmission delays while also improving QoS and quality of
experience (QoE) for end users.
(iii) Data Management: It is noted that the centralized data management model used in
cloud computing fails to keep up with the rate at which data in SGs are generated.
Thus, several studies have recently been conducted to investigate the adoption of a
decentralized data management framework. For example, the authors in [67] have
used edge computing to present a secure and efficient data management system for
mobile healthcare systems.

Key Enabling Technologies for Edge Computing

With an enormous number of IoT devices envisaged to be deployed in next-generation
systems, relying solely on the concept of edge computing may prove to be ineffective in
the long run. This is because despite the improvements demonstrated in recent years,
edge computing still has significant limitations that prevent it from being pervasively
deployed in real-time applications. These include issues linked to resource allocation,
such as limited bandwidth utilization, CPU cycle frequency, radio frequency, and access
jurisdiction, to name a few [22]. Thus, in this regard, we outline notable enabling tech-
nologies that possess the ability to address the aforementioned difficulties associated with
edge computing.
(i) Containerization: It has been noted that the widespread deployment of edge com-
puting has been constrained by limitations associated with the use of virtual machines
(VMs) as well as the bandwidth utilization of wide area networks (WANs) [68]. As a
result, the emergence of containerization as a viable solution among virtualization
technologies has garnered considerable attention from researchers and developers
alike. Containerization is one of the most widely used virtual technologies for ad-
dressing some of the issues that VMs encounter when deployed in cloud computing
paradigms. Containers, like VMs, partition the resources of physical machines into
numerous user-space instances. However, these containerized instances are isolated
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 11 of 50

and have a much smaller footprint than VMs. Consequently, large internet-based
companies such as Google, Spotify, eBay, and Twitter, among others, have been exper-
imenting with containerization technologies in order to scale their services efficiently.
In terms of container technologies, Docker has emerged as the most popular and
widely adopted solution for enabling edge computing. Many developers typically
leverage Docker or Kubernetes, the two most widely used container technologies,
to overcome some of the challenges inherent in latency-sensitive IoT applications.
These technologies have been developed as a viable approach for developing an
operating system tailored to these applications [69].
(ii) Orchestration: Orchestration is defined in [69] as a technology for managing interac-
tions between virtualized components such as containers and for composing, man-
aging, and terminating services. To meet the requirements of orchestration models,
the authors in [70] expanded the definition of orchestration to include the manage-
ment of services workload placement and processing via dynamic and intelligent
resource configuration in order to meet services level agreements. Orchestration
technologies are divided into two categories: service orchestration and infrastructure
orchestration. Orchestration is a broad concept in the context of edge computing,
consisting of numerous management efforts at various levels. Orchestration is critical
in multi-tier edge computing to ensure efficient and reliable operation of all compo-
nents [71]. Additionally, in edge computing, a typical orchestrator is used to manage
resource allocation.
Although several works in the literature have used this technology to address a variety
of problems, orchestration still faces issues with QoS estimation and matchmaking [72].
Consequently, the authors in [73] introduced an intelligent-based architecture for IoT-
based applications that combines orchestration (used between the cloud and the edge)
and AI techniques (which provides for the intelligence capability of an architecture).
In a separate article, authors in [74] proposed an online orchestration framework for
cross-edge service function chaining to improve cost-efficiency.
(iii) Fifth-Generation (5G) Mobile Network: Cellular communication technologies have
advanced tremendously over the last decades. Specifically, over the last two decades,
cellular networks have evolved significantly from third-generation (3G) to fifth-
generation (5G) technologies, necessitated by the proliferation of IoT devices [45,75].
Initially, the goal of preceding technologies such as 3G and 4G was to develop high-
speed wireless networks capable of supporting the transition from voice-centric to
multimedia-centric traffic. However, by advancing upon its predecessors, 5G promises
to outperform them by delivering remarkable benefits to mobile end users, such as
enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), ultra-reliable low-latency communications
(URLLC), and massive machine type communications (mMTC). To fully realize the
benefits of a variety of applications such as AR, VR, and smart environments, 5G has
been consolidated to facilitate and enhance the communication infrastructure’s overall
performance. In 2020, 5G drew considerable attention from researchers as a promising
wireless cellular network standard capable of meeting the stringent requirements of
next-generation systems.
This technology has been integrated into a variety of smart environments, including
SGs [76], smart healthcare [77], and smart cities [78], each of which addresses a unique
set of challenges. While 5G brings with it a slew of promising benefits, legacy com-
puting paradigms may deny end users the opportunity to explore them. To this end,
edge computing appears to be a viable solution for enabling the evolution of 5G by
essentially pushing cloud functions to end users [79]. Specifically, the authors in [79]
presented a taxonomy for edge computing in 5G, and emphasized critical aspects
of its coordination, such as computational platforms, key attributes, 5G functions,
and performance metrics. As a summary, a comprehensive investigation into MEC in
5G and IoT contexts can be accessed in [45].
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 12 of 50

Benefits of Edge Computing

Due to the complexity and diversity of the SG environment, stringent requirements
have been established that cannot be met by existing cloud-based infrastructures. However,
given the benefits of edge computing, which are discussed further below, it provides an
ideal platform for ensuring that SG requirements are met adequately. These advantages are
discussed under the following areas:
(i) Reduced Latency: The concept of edge computing has proven to be very beneficial for
latency-sensitive applications because it aims to reduce data transmission times while
also making the network structure easier to implement [80]. Edge computing has
been identified as a suitable platform in this regard to ensure that the requirements
emerging with SG applications such as wide area situational awareness (WASA),
outage management, and substation automation are met appropriately as discussed
in details in Section 3.2.3.
(ii) Mobility enhancement: An edge computing architecture typically consists of ge-
ographically distributed fog and edge devices distributed across the network for
computational and storage purposes. Edge computing, as a result of this benefit, can
provide mobility support to all mobile end-devices used in SGs.
(iii) Ease of data processing: Because of its ability to be deployed in close proximity to
data sources, edge computing has the advantage of analyzing and extracting some
useful insights from “big data”. Furthermore, since the number of smart meters de-
ployed in SGs is expected to grow at an exponential rate in the future, edge computing
can help manage and analyze data generated by smart meters in a more effective and
efficient manner.
(iv) Location Awareness: Unlike cloud computing, the edge computing paradigm can
perform some computation functions on data based on its geographic location. Fur-
thermore, this can be accomplished without the use of cloud services. Edge computing
significantly performs better than traditional cloud computing in terms of location
awareness, which will contribute to the success of WASA in SGs.

3.1.2. Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is envisioned in many different application areas and tech-
nologies as a means of imbuing physical machines with human-like intelligence. Given
the critical role that human intelligence plays in the success of AI, as the definition implies,
neuroscientists believe that biology can be viewed as an enabling ecosystem for emerging
AI applications [81]. AI has thus gained prominence in many application areas as a result
of the breakthroughs in other variants, such as in deep learning (DL) [38,40].

Deep Learning
To keep things simple, DL can be thought of as an enabling technology for ML [82]. Es-
sentially, DL enables ML technologies to realize a wide variety of applications, thus further
expanding the initial scope of AI [83]. Typically, DL is considered a subset of ML with the
goal of implementing AI through the use of effective algorithms to extract critical insights
from collected data for further prediction and decision-making. Recently, AI has been ap-
plied to a variety of IoT applications, including smart healthcare, SGs, and transportation,
as a result of advancements in ICT, software engineering, and biotechnology. Addition-
ally, these technologies have been extensively used in the SG environments, creating new
requirements and challenges.
Several studies have been conducted recently on the transition of the centralized
power grid to decentralized SGs through the use of edge computing. The rationale is
to concentrate computation resources at the network’s edge. As previously stated, edge
computing alone may be unable to meet certain emerging requirements in complex and
distributed environments, such as those found in SGs. As a result, the requirement to push AI
to the network’s edge has gained significant attention as a viable strategy for fully exploiting
the potentials of edge computing. Thus, the fusion of these two terminologies (edge computing
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 13 of 50

and AI) has resulted in the emergence of “edge intelligence (EI)” [22,41,45]. Among the benefits
that EI enables is a significant increase in the computational speed of IoT devices. Another
advantage of EI is that it effectively reduces computational reliance on the Internet cloud by
leveraging distributed edge resources on the network to improve the energy efficiency of
different AI applications such as in smart healthcare, smart Internet of Vehicles (IoVs), smart
cities, smart grids, and smart homes, among others. The development of EI is considered
as a crucial step toward resolving some of the most severe challenges (i.e., limited resources
and short battery life) encountered in global industrial applications [84].

AI for and on Edge Computing

There are typically two terminologies often associated with the use of AI within edge
computing, namely, “AI for edge computing” and “AI on edge computing” [22]. To differ-
entiate the two categories, “AI for edge computing” is defined as a research direction that is
solely concerned with developing feasible approaches for solving constrained optimization
problems in edge computing using efficient and effective AI techniques, whereas “AI on
edge computing” is concerned with developing methods for effectively and efficiently
executing AI models at the network’s edge.
The integration of AI into advanced technologies such as IoT, edge computing,
and wireless networks has been widely documented. Recent works have attempted to inves-
tigate the convergence of these technologies, specifically AI for edge computing [40,85,86].
In general, AI for edge computing can be viewed in four essential aspects: edge caching,
edge training, edge inference, and edge offloading. To this effect, the authors in [43] con-
ducted a comprehensive review of EI from a variety of perspectives, including caching,
inference, training, and offloading. Moreover, in terms of providing a specific definition,
the authors in [24] defined EI as “the deployment of computationally intensive intelligent
models (predominantly ML, DL, and data analytics) at the edge of the network”. In this
regard, EI applications are expected to benefit from the advantages of edge computing,
such as reduced latency and robust scalability [24]. Furthermore, in Ref. [87], a monitoring
paradigm based on EI was proposed that enables the grid to offload workloads to the edge
layer with the goal of reducing latency, data integration risks, and also providing disaster
monitoring facilities for SGs.
To address security concerns in electric power systems, the authors in [88] used edge
computing and image processing techniques to effectively and rapidly identify security
risks. In another architecture proposed by Ghosh and Grolinger in [25], sensors were
partitioned into groups based on their proximity to data sources in order to process data
efficiently. The authors in [41] examined the history and motivations for deploying AI at
the network’s edge. Moreover, the motivation for deploying AI at the edge was described
in [89] based on AI-based edge computing in accordance with edge computing architectures
and technologies. In another article, Amin and Hossain conducted a thorough analysis
of the cutting-edge artificial intelligence-based classification and prediction technique
used for EI [44]. Their study’s primary focus was on the issues confronting the smart
healthcare ecosystem.
Fundamentally, the authors in [21] explored the general architecture of AI-of-Things
(AIoT) by combining IoT, AI, and edge computing. In the AIoT, edge devices are empow-
ered to conduct data analysis and make intelligent decisions independently of human
intervention. Unlike a typical IoT architecture, which relies on the application layer to
make decisions, the AIoT architecture enables an advanced end layer to perform small
AI computational tasks or preprocess data produced by end devices. The authors of [26]
examined deep EI in terms of FL, distributed computation, compression schemes, and con-
ditional computation. Similarly, the authors of [21] concentrated on emerging technologies
for AI models, particularly inference and training at the network edges. The authors of [90]
proposed a new framework for automating wind turbine monitoring in SGs by using
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as EI units.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 14 of 50

3.1.3. Summary of the Discussion on Edge Intelligence

EI has the ability to significantly improve the overall network performance of IoT
applications in terms of latency, efficiency, and mobility, among other metrics. This is
demonstrated in [91], where the strategy they provided considerably enhanced the perfor-
mance of the applications by achieving a speedup of 1.1–18.7 times the baseline methods
under different network circumstances and settings. The authors decreased the average
time required to complete a task in order to attain constant latency. Similarly, in Ref. [92],
different edge caching, communication, and computation characteristics were studied to-
wards decreasing the optimum latency of an end device, where each task to be offloaded by
this device has a 10 ms latency requirement. In this sense, their suggested strategy reduced
overall latency by roughly 2.5 ms when the maximum processing rate of the edge server
approaches 38 GHz. In Ref. [93], vehicle mobility, distributed storage, and computation
resources were leveraged to overcome the issue of constrained backhaul. Due to the re-
stricted options for communication between the car and the relevant roadside unit, the cost
performance increases when vehicle movement is minimal. Thus, by using reinforcement
learning in [94] based on ultra-dense edge computing, the mobility management problem
was solved by lowering latency and using handover cost as a penalty term for the offloading
task. Due to the possibility of intelligently offloading computation-intensive activities to
neighboring edge servers, the energy consumption of each network device is drastically re-
duced [95]. This section has discussed the most often suggested EI concepts in the literature
with regard to edge computing, including their closely related concepts, features, enabling
technologies, and benefits. A few key articles that have tackled security issues associated
with the use of edge computing in SGs are summarized in Table 2. Furthermore, several
developments revolve around the concept of transferring computation applications and
services from the cloud to the edge. One of these developments is understanding how edge
computing differs from established computing paradigms and its capacity to transcend
the present limitations of these established paradigms. Another is identifying effective and
efficient enabling technologies that will allow this concept to be realized. While EI may
appear to be the right solution for the majority of the difficulties encountered in the IoT
ecosystem (SGs in particular), edge computing still has significant constraints, including
security and privacy, storage, and computing power. To address these problems, a number
of research works have examined the convergence of effective AI technologies and enabling
technologies, such as those indicated in Section 3.1.1.

3.2. Smart Grid: A General Overview

One of the most frequently used definitions of SG is the ability to integrate information,
two-way, cyber-secure communication technologies, and computational intelligence across
the vast bulk of the electricity supply chain (generation, transmission, distribution, and con-
sumption) in order to achieve a system that is clean, safe, secured, reliable, resilient, efficient,
and sustainable [1,2,96]. It is considered the next generation of power grids [12,97], and also
one of the main subsets of smart cities powered by IoT [98]. The concept of SG was born
out of the requirement for alternate solutions to the present difficulties confronting legacy
power networks. Legacy grids were planned decades ago with a fundamentally different
political, social, and technical context in mind than exists today [8], with a schematic of a
typical legacy grid as shown in Figure 3. As a result, legacy grids have failed to meet the
21st century requirements of customers. These include, but are not limited to, the inclusion
of RES, the conversion of centralized to distributed generation, and the replacement of
digital meters with smart meters [9,99].
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 15 of 50

Figure 3. General representation of legacy power grids "Reprinted/adapted with permission from
Ref. [3]. 2020, MDPI”.

For example, in emerging economies such as South Africa, fossil fuels (coal, crude
oil, and natural gas) continue to be the primary source of energy generation. However,
oil reserves are presently considered to be dwindling, and according to a 2016 analysis on
South Africa’s power, gas, and water supply industries, around 85.7 percent of the country’s
electricity was noted to be generated by fossil fuels [100]. However, the amount of carbon
dioxide emitted by these fossil fuels has resulted in worldwide climate change challenges.
Thus, governments and electric utilities have sought effective and economical ways to
deliver sustainable energy while still meeting the stringent expectations of customers [38].
To this effect, given Africa’s abundance of RESs, a recent research on Africa’s energy supply
has examined strategies to maximize the use of these sources in order to mitigate global
climate change while also contributing to the continent’s socioeconomic development [101].
It is beyond question that the legacy grid has had a significant impact on the daily
lives of customers since its establishment. Furthermore, it has existed for more than ten
decades as a critical engine of global economic development and expansion [102]. However,
there are significant issues arising from the exponential growth in power consumption
and the increased penetration of renewable energy sources, both of which pose new
difficulties to the flexibility of traditional systems. The power grid pattern is evolving as
a result of improvements in ICTs, and older grids are being compelled to adapt to these
new changes [3]. With governments now constrained by environmental and economic
constraints, fundamental system planning and operation are constrained to rely on existing
infrastructure with constricted operating and stability margins. Thus, recently, grids have
undergone a substantial shift to the developing paradigm known as SG, which aims to serve
as a promising ecosystem by delivering high reliability and efficient energy management
via the integration of modern ICTs across traditional grid domains. According to Ref. [8],
the first critical part of achieving this evolution to SGs, as well as its emerging advantages,
is to have a clear vision of its objectives. Thus, in the next subsection, we shall discuss some
of the emerging technologies required for the successful establishment of SGs. A general
representation of a smart grid architecture is shown in Figure 4.

3.2.1. Key Enabling Technologies of Smart Grid

Traditional power grids present a significant problem in addressing the various and
stringent expectations of customers in the IoT age including security, stability, QoS, flexibil-
ity, and scalability. SG development has emerged along with other technological improve-
ments to address these concerns. This section discusses many of the most significant and
popular technologies associated with the implementation of SGs, as presented below.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 16 of 50

Figure 4. General smart grid architecture.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure

From a communication standpoint, advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) may be
thought of as a paradigm that offers bidirectional communication infrastructure between
end users (smart meters) and utility centers [3]. This application is widely recognized
as the first step toward the development of SGs. AMI typically consists of smart meters,
a communication network, and a data management system for the meters (MDMS). In this
context, smart meters are primarily used to collect data on the energy consumed by all
smart devices (IoT and mobile) connected to the home area network (HAN). Additionally,
the acquired data are sent to the utility center’s MDMS through access points, allowing
for the issuance of control instructions and decision-making. AMI enables users to benefit
from self-monitoring, self-healing in the event of a problem, and automated operating
capabilities through the implementation of IoT in SGs. A further advantage of AMI is that
it has the capability of facilitating interaction between solar household systems and the
utility grid. However, in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of solar
panels installed on rooftops, which has made managing the dynamic flow of electricity a
significant issue for both power suppliers and customers [103]. In order to overcome this
difficulty, a communication model of a solar home system and smart meter that is based
on the IEC 61850 standard was developed in [103]. In addition, the end-to-end latency,
also known as ETE delay, was employed as a performance parameter for the suggested
communication architecture.
In general, AMI enables SGs to collect critical information from an end user’s device
and appliances while also managing their behavior [99]. In Ref. [75], an advanced version
of AMI was demonstrated that enables SGs to achieve accurate real-time electricity price
forecasting, localize real-time analysis of application services, optimize resource allocation
schemes, improve the reading efficiency of metering systems, and reduce costs. The authors
included edge computing and IoT devices into their framework. A knowledge-based
usage strategy for optimizing the energy consumption and longevity of smart meters was
presented in [104]. To increase operational flexibility, system performance, and ownership
costs, authors in [105] suggested a scalable serverless SG architecture based on fog-edge
computing virtualization.

Distributed Generation
Distributed generation (DG) is a general term that refers to the integration of dis-
tributed energy sources such as solar panels and wind turbines with the goal of reducing
transmission and distribution losses, assisting the local power grid, and enhancing system
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 17 of 50

stability, efficiency, and environmental protection [99,106]. Despite the environmental is-
sues created by fossil fuels over the last couple of decades, it is evident that these generating
sources have shaped the power grid’s frontiers. With fossil fuels depleting and becoming
prohibitively expensive for the electricity sector, power providers and governments are
refocusing their efforts on the integration of RESs into next-generation power grids. This
becomes a reality since SGs can facilitate two-way electrical and information flows, hence
enabling the power generating domain to become “smarter”. The notion of DG technology
is achieved in this regard. In order to make the most of this cutting-edge technology, a novel
architecture of an edge computing gateway based on the IEC 61850 extensible messaging
and presence protocol (XMPP) was developed in [107]. The goal of this architecture is to
reduce decision latency between DERs while simultaneously enhancing the microgrids’
level of stability.

Microgrid
A microgrid is a localized grouping of distributed energy generation, energy storage,
and loads [99]. The authors in [108] defined a smart microgrid as a collection of all tech-
nologies, concepts, topologies, and approaches that enable silo hierarchies of generation,
transmission, and distribution to be replaced by an end-to-end, spontaneously intelligent,
fully integrated environment in which all stakeholders’ business processes, objectives,
and needs are supported by the efficient exchange of data, services, and transactions. Mi-
crogrids, in general, are a viable approach to deal with the problems that DG imposes
on the macrogrid. They can run in two modes: normal operation and islanding mode.
In normal functioning mode, a microgrid is supplied with electricity from the traditional
power grid (macrogrid). In the islanding mode, microgrids are capable of decoupling
from the macrogrid and operating autonomously, thus increasing reliability and power
quality while minimizing investment costs, emissions, and power loss on the distribution
network. A detailed discussion of the architecture and functionality of microgrids can be
found in [106]. Despite the potential benefits of this paradigm, the distribution network
protection system is confronted with new challenges as the demand for DG integration
into microgrids grows, such as false tripping and protection blinding [109]. Protection
blinding is a phenomenon that can occur in SG networks with integrated DG sources when
overcurrent relays either delay or fail to trip off fault currents, resulting in an increase in
fault current contribution to the main feeder. This can have severe effects on the entire
network, including downtime and equipment failure. False tripping, on the other hand,
happens when relays trip when there is no need for them to. The detailed review in [110]
elaborates on many notable solutions available for addressing these challenges. Addition-
ally, such unintentional islanding in the microgrid has become a major technical challenge,
which can consequently have a significant impact on the power quality, security, voltage
and frequency stability of SG networks [111,112]. In a general sense, these restrictions
are brought about by the concept of power flowing in both directions within SGs. In re-
cent years, there has been progress made in developing adequate protection strategies to
solve the limitations imposed by DGs in the distribution network [113–115]. For instance,
the authors of [116] developed an AI-based protection strategy that is comprised of two
techniques, namely, a centralized controller and a zone controller. Communication among
smart protection devices is enabled under a centralized controller technique to effectively
isolate malfunctioning equipment from the overall network without affecting the grid’s
stability. In contrast, the zone controller technique, also known as the backup strategy,
partitions the grid network into protection zones in order to autonomously choose and
isolate the problematic zone from the network by making use of a protective device that
is embedded inside the zone. These very sophisticated defensive gadgets come equipped
with functions such as rapid reaction, sensitivity, selectivity, and dependability in their
design. In Ref. [117], the authors offered a novel method for rapidly detecting islanding
events in a microgrid. This method is based on the extraction of phase-space features and
an adaptive ensemble classifier. In a similar vein, a rapid islanding approach that requires
a minimum amount of processing burden was presented in [115] to intelligently detect
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 18 of 50

islanding occurrences. The detailed review in [112] provides readers with an in-depth
look at the various methods of islanding detection. In addition, the authors classified
these strategies as either central or local islanding, depending on their level of isolation.
According to Ref. [111], remote islanding is achieved either via SCADA or power line
communication systems, and their major purpose is to ensure communication between DG
units and the utility. On the other hand, local islanding takes advantage of variations in
system characteristics including voltage, frequency, current, and harmonic distortion in or-
der to identify instances of islanding. It is anticipated that the above significant efforts and
future solutions being put forward would make it possible for microgrids to island securely
while also injecting electricity into an SG network via reliable and stable mechanisms.

Electric Vehicles
Recent advances in SGs, along with the integration of electric vehicles (EVs), have
emerged as a viable alternative for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with
fossil fuels. Following the realization of SGs, EVs may act as either energy storage systems
or consumers, depending on the condition of the macrogrid. On the one hand, EVs utilize
their stored energy to power the macrogrid during peak load periods. This technique is
referred to as “vehicle to grid” (V2G). On the other side, EVs may function as consumers,
drawing energy from the macrogrid to charge. This is referred to as “grid to vehicle”
method (G2V). The authors in [118] have provided an overview of the state-of-the-art in
EVs. They discussed this technology from a variety of perspectives, including current
charging methods, RES integration, and the viability of smart V2G.

Internet of Things
Recently, the term “energy internet” was coined to describe an innovative strategy
for integrating IoT into SG applications. Thus, IoT-based SGs is another term that other
researchers use interchangeably with energy internet [64,75,119]. According to Ref. [75], IoT-
based SGs can be identified by a number of characteristics, including rapid interaction
of services in power systems, efficient use of electric distribution systems, plug-and-play
compatibility with a variety of terminal types, and comprehensive awareness of an
SG’s status.
In general, IoT has been widely recognized as an extension of the Internet that consists
of interconnected and related things (sensors, smart meters, RFID, and global positioning
systems, to name a few) that are capable of collecting and transmitting data over a network
using wireless and mobile technologies with minimal human intervention [119]. IoT
services are thus available regardless of time or location, which may result in more effective
and efficient data transmission, monitoring, and administration of decentralized systems
such as an SG. In Ref. [120], a comprehensive review of IoT applications in SGs is presented.
The authors in [121] examined the use of 5G and IoT to deliver disaster recovery
services in SGs from a variety of angles, including cybersecurity, user privacy, and depend-
ability. Similarly, the authors of [122] conducted a bibliometric analysis of IoT applications
from a security standpoint. These authors approached their study by posing four fun-
damental questions: what is the current state of cybersecurity work in SGs; what is the
future direction of cybersecurity in SGs; what are the existing cyber-threats posed to SGs;
and finally, what are the available cybersecurity solutions used in IoT integrated SGs.
Similarly, an innovative experimental prototype IoT system for energy management in
smart buildings was built and is presented in [123]. The authors demonstrated a real-time
location-based automated and networked energy control system across several smart build-
ings by merging smart location-based automated and networked energy control using
smartphones and cloud computing concepts.

Artificial Intelligence for Smart Grids

Recent studies have utilized AI techniques to solve various challenges in SGs from
different standpoints. EVs are one of the technologies growing in tandem with the de-
velopment of SGs. They aim to act as a catalyst for the reduction of CO2 emissions from
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 19 of 50

conventional power generation stations. To this effect, a study was conducted to determine
how the deployment of AI approaches may be utilized to intelligently manage a network’s
distributed EVs [31]. Similarly, Serban and Lytras proposed an innovative method for
constructing a theoretical framework with the goal of demonstrating how advanced AI
might greatly increase the efficiency of the renewable energy sector in the European Union
towards economic efficiency and sustainability. In another article, the authors suggested
a conceptual model to handle significant issues encountered during the load forecasting
process in SGs, such as long calculation time, huge data, data needs or restricted data,
and extra back-propagation (BP) operations [124]. There, the authors used a DL algorithm
to reduce the amount of processing time required to perform the load forecasting proce-
dure. Additionally, they conducted a comprehensive evaluation that focused exclusively on
studies published between 2015 and 2020, with some emphasis on DL techniques that may
be effective for load forecasting in SGs. Similarly, the authors in [38] undertook a detailed
evaluation from a wide viewpoint of the state-of-the-art developments in DL in SG systems.
In the same light, in Ref. [125], ML technologies were linked to SG mobile applications in
order to optimize consumer flexibility and increase energy savings. In Ref. [126], a FL-based
AIoT system was presented to provide safe and efficient data sharing in SGs. Additionally,
the authors leveraged edge-cloud computing in their suggested strategy to facilitate the
effective sharing of private data within SGs.

Edge Computing
The future of edge computing in IoT applications (such as smart transportation,
smart grids, and other similar ones) is currently undetermined. SG is only one of the IoT
applications that is benefiting from the development of edge computing. SGs are faced with
a variety of significant difficulties, and there are several studies in the literature that have
sought to address some of these challenges through the use of edge computing. For example,
in Ref. [127], the confluence of blockchain and edge computing was used to alleviate
concerns about privacy and energy security in SGs. An edge computing architecture was
developed by the authors of [128] in order to improve the real-time monitoring of smart
grids. These authors additionally used heuristic techniques to optimize the performance of
the suggested framework. The authors of [129] proposed EBDA, a lightweight approach
for safeguarding data privacy during data aggregation in SG, which is built on edge-
blockchain and is designed to be used on mobile devices. The authors in [130] designed a
joint optimization problem that can be used to address both the computation offloading
and caching difficulties in edge computing-based SG at the same time. A systematic study
focused on the development of SG from the aspects of data analysis, edge computing, IoT,
and context awareness is provided in [131]. Table 3 summarizes the critical security priority
areas regarding the deployment of edge computing in the SGs.

Distributed Ledger Technology

Blockchain technology has advanced at a rapid pace in recent years, owing to the
corresponding progress being made in the IoT domain. Blockchain technology can be
considered a subclass of distributed ledger technology (DLT) due to its critical role in the
digital cryptocurrency field. It has attracted substantial interest from the industry’s high-
tech leaders in recent years [19]. Security, transparency, and a decentralized architecture
are among the benefits of this developing technology [28]. The authors in [29] suggested a
decentralized blockchain-based architecture to address security concerns associated with
the intelligent vehicle edge computing paradigm. In a separate effort, the authors in [86]
proposed a broad framework for IoT scenarios using blockchain-based edge computing.
They used an ML approach to ensure efficient resource allocation for edge computing.
Additionally, the authors discussed the security and privacy concerns associated with
edge computing-enabled IoT designs. Their generated smart contract demonstrates an
exemplified way of integrating AI with blockchain. In Ref. [28], the authors used the
Stackelberg game to optimize resource costs and also the resource demands on devices
while offloading computation to an edge or cloud server. They studied the interaction
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 20 of 50

between the operator of an edge or cloud server and the collaborative mining network to
achieve appropriate results.

Table 3. Summary of key security areas regarding the application of Edge Computing in SG.

Performance
Ref Smart Grid Issue Technique Used Approach
Metrics
Privacy
Mathematical
[127] protection and PBEM-SGN Gas and time cost
model
energy security
Spoofing, MIMT, Dynamic Architecture and
[132] Cumulative risk
DoS scheduling Simulation
PEO and True positive rate
[129] Cyber attacks Simulation
EnPEO-DBN and error rate
Deep
Processing time
[27] Security reinforcement Evaluation
and rewards
learning

3.2.2. Application Areas in Smart Grids

This section discusses briefly the primary applications that have emerged as a result
of the development of SGs:

Substation Automation
Substations are critical components in the design and operation of electric power
grids. In older power grids, the primary function of substations was to provide monitoring,
control, and secure operation of the geographically distributed bulk of the power system
via the network’s different access points [133]. With the integration of ICTs across all
domains of the power grid, SGs allow for a new technology called substation automation
systems (SAS). This technology automates a variety of activities associated with traditional
substation equipment, including monitoring, regulating, and protection. Additionally,
SAS takes data from these devices and performs additional operations on them, providing
comprehensive control and communication activities [134]. However, with the proliferation
of smart IoT devices (smart sensors, smart meters, etc.), the distribution network has be-
come readily accessible, thus posing significant information processing and analysis issues
for distribution automation systems. In addition, many existing distribution automation
and fault detection systems are largely dependent on centralized data processing systems,
hence resulting in an increase in communication overhead and computational burden [135].
In this sense, edge computing has lately received a great deal of popularity as a potential
solution to some of the challenges posed by this system. For example, in Ref. [136], a real-
time detection system based on edge computing was designed to continuously monitor any
security threats imposed by intruders that may be missed by a conventional substation mon-
itoring system. Similarly, a distributed power distribution fault detection system based on
edge computing was presented in [137]. Their proposed system aims, among other things,
to enable prompt sensing and real-time reaction to distribution network failures, accelerate
distribution fault processing speed, and reduce outage duration. To optimize the flexibility
of the distribution automation system in the IoT era, the authors of [138] developed a
microservice-based edge computing device for smart distribution transformers, which
was able to improve the adaptability of a distribution automation system. Furthermore,
a multilevel edge computing architecture was proposed in [139] to ensure that the stringent
criteria of controlling distribution networks while minimizing continuous communication
was addressed. An edge computing-based fault detecting system was also developed
in [135] to monitor the condition of subterranean distribution wires. All of these options in
general imply that substation automation in SG networks may be greatly enhanced, which
will lead to increased performance and service delivery.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 21 of 50

Home Energy Management System

Through the facilitation of two-way information and energy flows in SGs, consumers
may be transitioned into prosumers. Consumers may now undertake DR programs au-
tonomously through the integration of home energy management system (HEMS) appli-
cations into SGs (i.e., critical peak pricing, real-time pricing, day-ahead pricing, and in-
cremental block rate pricing). The primary function of HEMS is to autonomously apply
DR measures with the goal of lowering customers’ power usage without compromising
their QoE [140]. Additionally, HEMS is mainly concerned with monitoring the energy
consumption of all electrical appliances used by consumers, where this equipment may be
monitored and regulated autonomously in order to balance and optimize power supply
and demand [141]. In recent years, small commercial RESs have become affordable, and as
a result, customers now have the ability to install intelligent control systems in order to
optimize the functioning of their own microgrids. For instance, during power outages on
the utility grid, customers can access the autonomy feature of RESs to maintain normal
operations on their end. However, these systems do not reach their full potential since,
in most situations, they fail to establish full autonomy over all devices at the consumer’s
location. Reusing batteries has been recognized as one of the potential answers to this
problem. In Ref. [142], batteries once used to power EVs have been repurposed to supply
home DR services. Similarly, in Ref. [143], the authors presented a study on how the
second-life batteries of EVs may be reused and re-energized to save grid costs and assure
sustainable energy. Likewise in Ref. [144], the second-life batteries of EVs were examined
for their reuse in smart buildings from an economic and aging perspective. Summarily,
these studies strongly suggest the potential benefits of second life battery reuse towards
enhancing the performance of HEMS as well as other application areas within SGs.

Wide-Area Situational Awareness

One of the critical concepts arising with the development of SGs is wide-area situa-
tional awareness (WASA) [145]. Notably, SGs include the extensive deployment of vital
infrastructure in remote places with little or no human interaction. Effective and efficient
monitoring of these infrastructures becomes difficult under this situation, and the grid’s
overall performance declines significantly. WASA has been realized by the combination of
sophisticated technologies such as IoT into situational awareness, which enables the expan-
sion of system monitoring at any time and from any location [146]. This paradigm aims to
enable low latency and high throughput monitoring, archiving, reporting, and querying
of the state of the power grid [147]. Additionally, WASA can aid power providers in
responding quickly to network events, reducing the likelihood of catastrophic failures such
as large-scale blackouts.

Overhead Transmission Line Monitoring

A typical power grid’s fundamental components include domains for power genera-
tion, transmission, distribution, and consumption. Notably, normal transmission domain
operation is regarded as a vital requirement for ensuring the secure and stable functioning
of the whole power system. Recently, the idea of online monitoring technology for overhead
transmission lines was introduced in conjunction with the deployment of SG to enhance
transmission line protection and diagnostics [119].

Demand Response
Demand response (DR) has been generally acknowledged as a cost-effective and
dependable method of developing policies and protocols for SG development with the goal
of monitoring and managing end-user resources using sophisticated ICTs incorporated into
next-generation power grids [148,149]. In simple words, DR may be seen as an upgraded
version of the old idea of consumption demand, with the capability of adjusting loads
in response to power system shortages and surpluses. Historically, time of use (ToU)
and incentive programs were the most widely employed DR strategies beginning in the
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 22 of 50

1970’s [140]. Facilitating the integration of new technologies such as 5G and IoT into
disaster recovery will help maximize the benefits of this application while also improving
the performance of its infrastructure [121].

Outage Management
Outage management is a cutting-edge technology that greatly contributes to distribu-
tion automation. This technology is primarily focused on detecting a problem as soon as
it occurs (to avoid a catastrophic failure of the power system), as well as identifying the
location of the fault and the protective devices (i.e., circuit breakers, relays, etc.) triggered
by the fault [150]. The authors in [151] utilized data collected from various smart meters
and fault indicators placed in SGs to provide an accurate and effective outage management
strategy for SGs. They suggested a novel multi-hypothesis approach for determining the
location of a feeder fault. A novel optimization-based home load control was presented
in [149] to manage the operation times of responsive electrical appliances, identify multiple
recommended operation hours for non-responsive appliances, and plan the charge and
discharge cycles for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). The authors considered a
variety of client preferences, including payment costs, disruption costs, and operational
restrictions. The authors in [152] created a multi-agent system (MAS) for managing outages
in a microgrid’s electrical energy.

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) Charging

The charging strategies for PHEVs may be grouped into four categories: uncontrolled,
indirectly regulated, smart, and bidirectional charging [153]. This paradigm has recently
emerged as a potential option for serving as a storage system in SG deployments with
the goal of alleviating intermittency issues imposed by renewable energy sources and
load demands. Practical application of PHEVs as energy storage systems continues to
be a difficulty owing to their mobility as a mode of transportation, which may result in
intermittency. To satisfy customers’ real-time load needs, the authors in [154] provided
an intelligent energy source selection approach that determines whether an energy source
(macrogrid) or storage device (microgrid) should be deployed depending on the duration
of power demand. Additionally, the authors used the particle swarm optimization (PSO)
technique to minimize costs and emissions associated with grid-connected thermal produc-
ing sources. Due to the success of incentive policies, the development of this technology
has gained significant attention in the research and academia space [155]. The number of
EVs integrated into the utility grid is expected to increase dramatically in the near future.
From an operational and management standpoint, this will pose technical challenges for
the utility grid due to the technical limitations of the current grid to feed the increase in
connected vehicles. Consequently, the development of an adequate technical and market
operation framework is of great importance to address these challenges [156]. In addition,
a variety of research and development initiatives have been made to solve these challenges;
for instance, the authors of [157] offered an overview of PHEV charging systems in Spain.
They underlined the necessity to standardize the charging connections used by different
manufacturers of PHEVs so that PHEV owners may use any charging station. Furthermore,
the authors advised for enhanced storage systems in isolated microgrid charging stations in
order to increase charging efficiency, cycles, and modes owing to the negative demands on
the main grid. This will necessitate more technological breakthroughs in battery design and
management technologies. The authors of [158] undertook a simulation model research
to examine the implications of large-scale PHEV charging on distribution networks from
both a steady-state and dynamic operating standpoint. To improve the PHEV integration
process, the following solutions were proposed: increasing the power factor of EV charging
stations, installing large energy storage systems within charging stations, coordinating
with local distribution generation to redirect power flow to charging stations, and pro-
viding adaptive controllers that can improve charging in response to fluctuating network
load conditions. We note that other noteworthy PHEV charging solutions may be found
in [159–162].
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 23 of 50

Asset Management
Many essential assets deployed in the SGs generation domain, including generating
units and plant equipment, could be approaching the end of their stipulated service life.
In this regard, scheduled maintenance and operation schedules should be executed on a
regular basis to ensure that they last as long as envisaged. It is possible to describe asset
management as a methodical procedure that ensures efficient and effective monitoring and
maintenance of vital equipment(s) in a network [163]. With rapid advances in the develop-
ment of smart sensors in SGs, new asset management-related elements may be integrated
and explored. This is possible since SGs aim to provide ubiquitous monitoring across all
of the grid domains via intelligent monitoring and control devices such as smart sensors
and smart meters. An example of such a solution was proposed in [164] where a spectrum
resource allocation scheme was proposed to extend the life of a battery-powered finite
monitoring network. In Ref. [165], the issue of asset management in SG was resolved with
the implementation of an intelligent grid management system (IGMS). Their method was
described as an optimization technique in which the cost of assets was determined based
on failure rate, loss, asset life estimation, outage, repair, and maintenance. The authors
demonstrated that their approach can identify the frequency of maintenance and lower
the overall cost of asset management. Similarly, the authors of [166] introduced a resource
scheduling strategy based on the convergence of genetic algorithm and machine learning
to forecast maintenance in a fog computing environment. In Ref. [167], an intelligent
framework based on digital signal processing and pattern recognition algorithms was
presented to efficiently monitor and analyze the condition of smart power transformers.
These algorithms were utilized to automatically decrease the noise in sensor-collected
signals, derive patterns from raw data, and detect the kind of transformer defects. These
and many more solutions in published studies (such as in [154,167,168]) demonstrate that
asset management can be improved upon in order to maximize the operating life of SGs.

3.2.3. Summary of the Discussion on Smart Grids

This section provides a summary of the discussion presented on SGs. Several compo-
nents of SGs have been discussed, including their fundamental enablers and applications.
From an application standpoint, it is indeed worth noting that the integration of IoT into
power grids has been widely embraced, since it plays a critical part in this concept. Ad-
ditionally, as noted in [134] , the bulk of these applications have a variety of demanding
criteria. Given the need of edge computing to deliver ultra-low latency, it is a potential
strategy for mitigating the limitations of SG networks. For example, because DERs are
critical components of SG networks, it is critical that they interact with one another and
that there should be some form of local intelligent computation among a widely dispersed
set of DERs in order to minimize decision latency. It is possible to conduct this locally by
leveraging the power of edge computing rather than executing these computations at a
remote cloud center. As a result, communication latency between these components may
be greatly decreased. In a similar vein, SGs are built on a multitude of different systems, all
of which need to be constantly monitored and communicated with in order to guarantee
the network’s integrity and reliability. This may be accomplished by introducing new ideas
such as asset management and WASA. However, the severity of the issue of latency must
be taken into consideration, and the concept of edge computing can be leveraged. It is
interesting to note that in [169], it was recommended that SG applications might be con-
ducted over LTE base stations in order to provide low latency connection to smart meters
with the goal of fulfilling the latency criteria that these applications demand. In addition,
as presented in Table 3, a few studies have suggested the potential to address security and
privacy issues connected with SGs based on the use of edge computing. Furthermore, we
have discussed the possible benefits of edge computing in a number of SGs applications
from the point of view of latency as noted in Section 3.2.1.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 24 of 50

4. Architecture for Deploying Edge Intelligence in Smart Grids

In this section, an overview of an edge intelligence-based architecture suitable for
SG applications is presented, which adopts the three-tier hierarchical architecture design
similar to the general edge computing architecture, as depicted in Figure 5. Various
studies in the literature have proposed different implementations of edge computing-based
architectures with specialized application domains [51,67,73,170]. However, this section
may be unable to cover all proposed designs in the literature due to the fact that each
research has a unique purpose. We are only interested in research that focuses only on the
application of edge computing and edge intelligence in SGs in this respect.

Figure 5. Generic edge computing architecture for smart grid.

4.1. General Edge Computing Architecture

According to Ref. [171], an architecture is a blueprint that defines the existing or future
state of a “domain” constituted of components and their interconnections, the actions or
activities performed by those components, and the rules or constraints governing those
activities. Along with their concept, the authors developed three distinct reference designs
from the standpoint of smart manufacturing. Thus, physical architecture (resources and
components), functional architecture (functions and activity execution), and allocated
architecture each have their own distinct characteristics (interconnection between the
physical and functional architecture). Regardless of their origins or application areas, all
extant architectures adhere to the general structural design of edge computing. Typically,
as seen in the Figure 5, an edge computing architecture consists of three hierarchical
layers: end-device, edge server, and core cloud. Several studies have been published in the
literature seeking to integrate edge computing characteristics into SGs applications. On the
edge servers, the FL method was employed to maximize the potential of edge intelligence
in this architecture. This method enables AMI to do distributed data processing and make
intelligent decisions.
The authors of [6] provided a high-level overview of an edge computing-IoT-based
SG architecture that integrates edge computing and IoT to support an SG’s network,
computation, and memory management. The edge layer, which contains distributed
edge nodes, gateways, and local servers, operates as an intermediate layer between cloud
computing and the device layer in their proposed design. This layer is primarily responsible
for filtering and preparing data generated by IoT devices (smart phones, smart meters,
video cameras, and sensors) before it is communicated to the cloud. In Ref. [172], a universal
three-tier edge computing system for efficient fault location in distribution grids was
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 25 of 50

presented. In Ref. [129], a novel architecture based on a three-layer basic design and
utilizing edge computing and blockchain to safeguard data during SG aggregation was
proposed. Similarly, edge computing and blockchain technology were used in [127] to
address privacy and energy security concerns in SGs.

4.2. Edge Intelligence-Based Architectures for SGs

The authors of [24] presented an architectural paradigm for AMI systems that utilizes
the combination of edge computing and edge intelligence. The architecture presented
in this article is composed of multiple NANs. Each NAN is comprised of many HANs,
each with its own AMI-edge, serving as a communication gateway between smart meters
and cloud servers. Ref. [173] introduces another generic architecture, which is a three-tier
IoT-edge-cloud architecture. The MEC network tier serves as an intermediate node be-
tween the smart device and cloud levels in their proposed design. To boost the speed and
processing capabilities of resource-constrained smart devices at the bottom layer of the
architecture, these devices offload computation-intensive tasks to neighboring edge nodes.
By embracing industrial edge computing, the authors of [75] expanded this innovation to
an advanced architecture with five levels (i.e., device, network, data, application, and cloud
computing layers). The device layer is comprised of applications, security modules, net-
works, security operating systems, and control chips in the context of SG. Essentially, this
layer is in charge of providing computation resources. In Ref. [172], the general edge
computing architecture employs federated learning methods to alleviate communication
burden between measurement nodes and the substation server.
The authors of [174] suggested a framework with two tiers that included edge com-
puting, cloud computing, and, moreover, a deep reinforcement learning method was used
to optimize their proposed architecture’s communication, processing, and caching. Three
distinct types of edge layers with various coverage areas were used at the edge layer to
provide computing resources to constrained-resource devices in the service layer. A deep
reinforcement learning approach based on edge computing was suggested in [27] to im-
prove the security situational awareness of AMI. To control the power resources in SG
systems, Ref. [175] presented a framework based on a mix of peer-to-peer (P2P) technology
and edge computing. The authors in [12] exploited EI in SG systems to allow for effective
defect detection with the purpose of increasing network performance and resource usage.
In Ref. [20], a cost-effective edge-cloud integrated framework solution for identifying
reinforcement learning for DR in smart buildings was proposed.

4.3. Summary and Comparison

This section has summarized the state-of-the-art research on EI-based SGs, with a
particular emphasis on architectures. Figure 6 illustrates an architecture for SG applications
based on EI. Similarly, as shown in Table 4, the majority of these designs were developed
using a generic representation of edge computing architectures, the majority of which used
DL to include intelligence characteristics.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 26 of 50

Intelligent Edge Layer

3
2
IoT devices
Data monitoring .42

18
.1
6
55
.
264.
.3 1
07
4

Data process and control Smart Smartphone

sensors
Data analysis
Laptop

Partial
Access Smart meter
Edge intelligence Router
Cloud
IPad
Local Raw data

Artificial Intelligence IoT device Offloading Wind

Improved Security
decision system Solar
Wearable system
Full

Blockchain
device
EV
Edge servers

Network Node

Gateway WLAN Access point Router Repeater Satelite

Device Layer

Power System

Residential

Inteligent
Substation Transmission Commercial
Automation Inteligent Distribution
Substation Automation

Industrial

Figure 6. Edge intelligence-based architecture for smart grid.

J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 27 of 50

Table 4. Different Edge Intelligence Architectures and their characteristics for SG applications.

Architecture Type of Edge AI Algorithms

Ref End User Devices Objectives Pros Cons
Design Server Devices Deployed at the Edge
Provides a generic
• Smart phones Compatibility between layers framework with no specific
Three Layers: • Video camera Manage high volume of data was considered SG application use case
[6] • Device • Voltage sensors Computers _
from IoT devices in SGs Provision was made for security and Provides no software layers
• Edge • Proximity sensors management services No interconnections
• Cloud • Current sensors between edge nodes
Three Layers: Reduce overall
Tailored for AMI Provides no software layers
• Smart users communication cost, preserve
[24] • Smart meters MDMS Federated learning Provides for interconnection of Does not indicate security
• Edge user privacy and enhance
edge nodes and management services
• Central Cloud situational awareness in AMI
Five Layers: Provides details about hardware and
Enhancing the rapid response
• Device software layers
• Solar and wind for user’s requirement,
Microgrid Provides for security and No provisioning for ML
[75] • Network farm _ intelligent scheduling,
• Data central controller management services deployment at the edge
• Airport, mall and maintenance and rapid
• Application Adapted for power distribution
town market responses
• Cloud surveillance systems
Provides details about the
Three Layers: No details of
interconnection of devices at the
• Device • Sensor Edge cloud Fault location in software layers
[172] _ edge layer
• Edge • Machine tool Edge controller distribution grids No provisioning of security
It adapts the generic architecture for
• Cloud • Robot Edge gateway and management services
fault location application
Three Layers: Optimize communication, It differentiates the service layer as a No software layers
Deep
[174] • Service • Power devices Edge nodes computing, and system consisting of users and No provision for security
• Edge reinforcement learning
caching resources power devices and management services
• Cloud
Three Layers: • Smart sensors Provides details about architecture’s
Deep Enhance security situational Provides no details of
[27] • Power terminal • Microgrid facilities Edge agents adaptation to security situational
reinforcement learning awareness for SGs software layers
• Edge • Intelligent charging awareness in SG
• Cloud piles
• Smart meters
Three Layers: • Distributed generators P2P model, Enhance energy resource
• Smart grid • Distributed energy Provides adaptation to No provisioning of security
[175] Edge nodes Alternating direction of management and penetration
• Edge storage systems SG applications and management services
method multipliers of renewable energy sources
• Cloud • Smart electrical appliances

Two Layers: Enable large-scale

Provides details about the Does not differentiate
[20] • Edge • RTUs RL agent Reinforcement learning deployment in a
operations at edge and cloud between device and edge
• Cloud cost-efficient manner
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 28 of 50

5. Computation Offloading for Edge Intelligence in Smart Grids

Many IoT mobile devices are limited by their physical sizes, and they often encounter
additional challenges due to their limited computational resources and battery life. Apart
from their restricted capabilities, the majority of applications required by these mobile
devices are computationally heavy and consume a lot of energy, putting a strain on these
devices. With the proliferation of IoT mobile devices and the buzz around the use of EI in
SG applications, these difficulties must be addressed.
To this effect, computation offloading has emerged as a realistic approach in recent
years. Several researchers have used the words “cyber foraging” and “remote execution”
interchangeably with computation offloading in the literature [176–179]. Nevertheless,
computation offloading has been popularly defined as a strategy that entails splitting an
application into discrete workloads and then offloading them from resource-constrained
mobile devices to edge or cloud computing [22,89,180]. Additionally, it promises to min-
imize energy consumption and boost computation performance, which might result in
decreased communication latency in edge computing systems [17,21].
It should be emphasized that the majority of applications that profit from computation
offloading are those that utilize augmented, aided, or VR. Despite its enormous benefits,
computation offloading in edge computing continues to face significant hurdles in terms of
offloading decisions, computational resource allocation, and mobility management [17,83].
In general, computation offloading has been investigated in the context of edge computing
and networking in [181]. Other papers in the literature have sought to address the aforemen-
tioned issues. Here, we review studies that have employed computation offloading in edge
computing, classifying them into single- and multi-user cases. Additionally, we examined
the responses to three critical problems highlighted by the computation offloading concept.
As a result, the following factors are critical: (i) when to offload (precise time to offload the
specified task); (ii) what to unload (offloaded workload selection); and (iii) where to offload
(workload scheduling).

5.1. What Is Computation Offloading

To begin, computation offloading is a concept that entails using resilient infrastructures
in order to augment the computational and storage capabilities of resource-constrained IoT
and mobile devices [182]. According to Ref. [17], computation offloading may be used to ef-
fectively ensure users’ QoS by offloading compute-intensive or latency-sensitive workloads
to edge devices or neighboring edge servers. This strategy entails partitioning workloads
into manageable subtasks, deciding on offloading strategies, and executing distributed
tasks. This vision became a reality with the development of computing technologies during
the last two decades. Task partitioning, offloading decisions, and distributed task execu-
tion are all critical components of computation offloading. Given the heterogeneity and
distributed nature of edge devices, various considerations must be made prior to making
any decision about computation offloading. These include performance optimization and
energy consumption reduction. For instance, the authors of [180] used an offloading mech-
anism to reduce mobile users’ power usage while allowing them to experiment with their
own long-term offloading solutions. The article in [183] is one of the earliest publications
to examine this idea. The authors created an agile prototype that enables the execution of a
variety of mobile applications in this work. It is critical to highlight that, in edge computing,
each device collaborates to offload their task locally, partially, or totally. A summary of key
works on the subject of computation offloading is summarized in Table 5.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 29 of 50

Table 5. Summary of key articles on computation offloading.

Reference Architecture Major Contributions on Computation Offloading

[180] No Offloading mechanism, interference, and energy consumption
[181] No Energy consumption, QoS guarantee, and QoE enhancement
[17] Yes Offloading decision, resource allocation,
and mobility management
[184] No Optimal Offloading scheme, overall computation overhead,
and computational efficiency
[182] Yes Task partitioning, allocation, and execution
[185] No Offloading decisions, caching enhancement, and reduce
execution delay

5.2. Why Do We Need Computation Offloading

The literature highlights the importance of minimizing communication delays and
enhancing the processing and storage capacities of limited-resource systems. Thus, the IoT
and mobile devices to be deployed in next-generation networks are and will drive the need
for edge computing computation offloading. To alleviate the load placed on such systems, it
was recommended that some programs be moved and executed on an Internet cloud server
for seamless operation [186]. Offloading to an Internet cloud, on the other hand, may not
be the optimal solution in a diverse and dynamic environment such as SGs, where the bulk
of applications require low latency. Rather than that, offloading to an edge server or edge
device (in the event of an IoT device equipped with computation and storage resources)
will be preferable. Offloading to the edge server (partial), the edge device (local), or both
(complete), depending on the approach chosen, has demonstrated impressive benefits such
as decreased energy usage, execution latency, and increased battery life of devices.
Several previous research works have concentrated on partitioning resource-intensive
activities at the user’s device in order to maximize QoE for users while also lowering
execution costs and energy consumption [181,184,185]. The authors in [173] increased the
capabilities of smart devices in terms of execution time, energy consumption, and payment
cost by combining cloud computing with MEC in a computation offloading system. In
Ref. [180], the long-term value of mobile users was maximized through the implementa-
tion of a model-free reinforcement learning offloading method. By obtaining a minimal
execution delay of 42.83 percent and 33.28 percent in single user situations, respectively,
and 11.71 percent in multi-user scenarios, the suggested optimum offloading scheme with
caching enhancement strategy outperformed six alternative current systems. In Ref. [187],
an integration model for computation offloading was developed with the goal of lower-
ing the system’s weighted total cost in terms of latency and energy usage. The authors
in [188] chose a delayed online learning approach to account for changing latency during
long-duration processing. It is clear from these publications that computation offloading
is critical in the edge computing environment. As a result, SGs applications and services
can significantly benefit from the use of this technology, which promises to lower latency,
energy consumption, and device battery life, among other benefits.

5.3. Single-User Case

Splitting computation activities into sub-tasks is a critical aspect in enabling the of-
floading potential of computing models. The authors in [189] discussed strategies for
efficiently partitioning a software application composed of a large number of components
in cloud computing. These authors have taken into consideration the variability of cloud
computing infrastructure. To increase the chance of success for the optimization problem
defined in [190], the authors performed research on how a single-user task should be
scheduled to both the edge and the Internet cloud. The research in [191] found the global
optimum solution in the single-user situation with the goal of decreasing power consump-
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 30 of 50

tion during task offloading. In Ref. [192], a resource-efficient edge computing approach
was suggested. The authors analyzed their approach in a single-user scenario, where each
smart IoT device user on the network is provided with the potential to efficiently offload
its resource-intensive activities to nearby local devices.
Certain fundamental concerns in conventional computing, such as network use, power
consumption, memory utilization, and adaptive offloading cost, have been solved by the
innovative distributed technique based on graph representation suggested in [193]. To save
costs, the authors recommended that each device retain a similar graph consisting of
components in its memory space, while simultaneously abstracting portions of components
located in remote places. In Ref. [194], a ThinkAir framework was presented that enables
a simpler migration of smartphone applications to the Internet cloud. According to the
authors, the primary goals of their suggested architecture were to reduce the likelihood
of wasting available resources and to improve the computing performance and efficiency
of mobile devices. To prevent lengthy data transmission delays, Ref. [195] proposed a
decentralized game theoretic technique that enables mobile devices to organize themselves
automatically into mutually acceptable computation offloading decisions. Additionally, it
was noted that the self-organizing capability of mobile devices will assist in reducing the
amount of effort required of sophisticated data management systems.

5.4. Multi-User Case

In Ref. [187], the authors developed an advanced deep learning-based computational
offloading technique for multilayer vehicular edge-cloud computing networks with the
goal of determining near-optimal computation offloading decisions. Additionally, the syn-
ergy between computation offloading and resource allocation was articulated as a binary
optimization problem in order to increase the network’s time and energy efficiency. In this
situation, computation activities might be offloaded locally (on the vehicle), partially (on
the cloud server), or completely (on the vehicular edge computing). The authors in [186]
proposed a solution for multi-user MEC systems based on spectral clustering computation
under the premise that all users are supplied by a single edge server. However, if all users
are permitted to offload duties concurrently, this may result in high inference owing to re-
source congestion. Considering a different approach, in Ref. [180], the authors presented an
offloading strategy based on Q-learning that takes user mobility into account and also miti-
gates harsh inference caused by resource contention (which usually occurs when multiple
mobile users offload workloads at the same edge server simultaneously). In this case, mo-
bile users are permitted to maximize the amount of processed central processing unit (CPU)
cycles within their respective time slots, resulting in decreased energy usage. Similarly,
the authors in [196] established a unique online SBS peer offloading architecture to enhance
the long-term system performance of small-cell base stations (SBSs) without exceeding their
required energy consumption threshold. To solve the offloading decision-making difficulty
in their suggested architecture, the authors used the Lyapunov drift-plus-penalty approach
and also created an energy deficiency queue for each SBS placed on the network. Simi-
larly, Ref. [188] presented an online-assisted cooperative offloading technique. Here, the
authors considered a scenario in which computation offloading was structured according
to the degree of trust that individuals had developed for one another. This would improve
the effectiveness of cooperative offloading applications in MEC.
In comparison to earlier research, the solution in [184] considered that each compu-
tation task in their suggested model is atomic and cannot be partitioned. Additionally,
each device is provided three computation strategies (i.e., locally, partly, or fully offloading)
against which to choose when it comes to offloading its computation tasks. The connection
between the mobile device and the edge server serves as a criterion for determining which
of these offloading mechanisms to apply. Partial offloading, for example, refers to the
offloading performed by the mobile device’s CPU. Whereas partial offloading occurs at
a MEC server attached to the macro base station, complete offloading occurs at the small
cell associated with a mobile device. The proposition in [173] comprises a computation
offloading technique based on queuing theory and the stochastic gradient descent (SGD)
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 31 of 50

algorithm to address the issue of resource consumption in smart devices. In a different

approach, the authors in [197] conducted a research on management difficulties associated
with computation offloading in heterogeneous networks with the goal of minimizing energy
consumption and examining the influence of computation resource allocation on energy
consumption and computation offloading. The authors in [198] reduced the weighted
energy consumption of mobile devices by developing an optimization model to calculate
a near-optimal offloading solution for each mobile device. Security and compression lay-
ers were also included in the optimization approach to safeguard and compress the data
associated with compute activities before they were transmitted to servers.

5.5. Summary
Table 6 compares the AI and other strategies used to handle many of the main difficul-
ties associated with computation offloading. Among these difficulties are judgments about
offloading, resource allocation, and mobility management. As can be seen from the com-
parison table, the majority of articles sought to address one or two of these issues, but not
all at the same time. Given the interconnected nature of these difficulties, future research
that considers all three simultaneously from an SG viewpoint is essential. Additionally,
the bulk of the research has framed offloading computing as an optimization problem.

Table 6. Application areas, techniques and other metrics associated with computation offloading
(OD—offloading decision, RA—resource allocation, MM—mobility management).

Application Mathematical
Ref Technique OD RA MM Performance Metrics Accuracy
Area Tools
• Reinforcement learning
• Distributed deep learning Binary
[187] Vehicular Yes Yes No • Reward ratio –
• Deep neural networks optimization

Multiuser • Average energy consumption

• BiJOR Bilevel
[199] interference Yes Yes No • Average AN –
• ACS-CLPSO optimization
environment

• Performance ratio’s bound Non-

Wireless • Q-Learning • Average energy consumption coorporative
[180] Yes No No 87.87%
networks • BRI • Multiple user offloading exact potential
game
• Computation overhead 79%,
Ultradense
[184] • Game-theoretic greedy Yes No No • Running time MECO 83%,
IoT networks
• Energy consumption and 52%
• Minimum processing time
• Spectral clustering Constrained
• Running time double-
[186] MEC system • Label propagation theory No Yes No –
• Local energy consumption objective
• Graph cut
• Transmission energy optimization
consumption
• Average delay 42.83%
Mobile • Cooperative call graph
[185] Yes No No • Average caching hit probability OOCS and
collaborative • Coalition formation game
• Average offloading probability 33.28%
Nonlinear
• Stochastic gradient • Execution time
[173] IoT No Yes No multiobjective –
descent • Energy consumption
optimization
• Queuing theory • Payment cost
Multi-channel
wireless • No.of decision slots
[200] • Heuristic Yes No No NP-hard –
interference • Computation overhead
• Nash Equilibrium
environment • No.of beneficial cloud
computing users

6. Cyber Security Challenges and Solutions in Edge Intelligence-Based Smart Grids

Edge computing is envisioned as one of the enabling technologies that will enable
next-generation power grids (i.e., SGs) to reach their full potential. While SGs use modern
ICT and computational intelligence, it is apparent that the majority of their critical services
and applications are still delivered via cloud computing. Due to the shared background
nature of such an architecture, it exposes end users’ privacy and security, as well as the
reliability of power grid infrastructure, to cyber attacks. In Ref. [201], an overview of the
SGs’ vulnerabilities (i.e., blackouts, communication protocols, customer privacy breaches,
to name a few) is presented. Thus, the coordination of edge computing in SGs is indeed a
pragmatic solution in light of these challenges.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 32 of 50

It is worth noting that IoT smart devices play a significant role in the deployment of
SGs. However, there are challenges that need to be addressed towards the deployment of
IoT devices in SGs. These difficulties are mostly due to the extensive processing applica-
tions that these devices, despite their relatively small physical size, need. Edge computing
combines developing technologies such as virtualization (Section 3) and computation of-
floading (Section 5) in order to relocate these jobs closer to edge devices (i.e., IoT devices
or mobiles). Both of these technologies, as well as the edge computing paradigm, rely
significantly on edge or cloud servers to operate properly. Prior to offloading, computation
activities must be partitioned and offloaded to the edge or cloud server. Authentication
should be addressed first during this stage. The buzz around the deployment of these
servers in an environment densely packed with intelligent IoT devices creates security
concerns for the edge computing paradigm. Various studies in the literature have pre-
sented a number of innovative techniques to address these concerns without compromising
end-user QoS and QoE. For example, the authors in [202] have provided an overview
of the security and privacy challenges raised by edge computing. Nevertheless, differ-
ent from [202], in this section, we examine many critical security problems associated
with the edge computing paradigm via the perspective of SGs. Additionally, we discuss
blockchain, a novel technology that can aid in resolving security and privacy concerns in
edge computing systems.

6.1. Security Challenges

6.1.1. Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS)
As explained in Section 3.2, the majority of applications, such as situational awareness
and transmission line monitoring, need low latency. Additionally, attacks and threats
against power grid infrastructure appear to be aimed at completely shutting down the
grid. In this regard, SGs cannot afford communication delays, as this would result in
massive data traffic on the network. To put it simply, a denial of service (DoS) attack
denies authorized users access to shared services or resources [203]. DoS attacks manifest
themselves in a variety of ways and may also be classified according to their influence
on the afflicted system’s safety-criticality. The authors in [204] suggested a distributed
DoS attack detection technique based on DL. The authors also constructed a recurrent
deep neural network to obtain the findings regarding the pattern from the sequence of
network traffic and attack activities. The discussion in [205] included a comprehensive
evaluation of DDoS statistical approaches. The authors of this article examined statistical
techniques for tracking traffic arrivals at discrete time stamps. Several of the parameters
discovered in this study that impact the overall effectiveness of DDoS detection systems
include computational overhead, attack detection accuracy, and detection of the source
or destination of an attack. Additionally, the growth of edge computing in SGs poses
concerns about security and privacy. Typically, attacks against edge computing are the
result of design flaws, improper setup, and implementation flaws [206]. Each layer in the
edge computing architecture may encounter unique security challenges [207]. For instance,
DDoS attacks, insecure systems and components, and a lack of data privacy protection are
frequently encountered on edge servers, but malicious administrators may be viewed as a
significant obstacle in edge administration. To show the robustness of their hierarchical
software-defined perimeter (SDP) architecture, the authors in [202] utilized a DDoS attack as
a performance metric. In Ref. [208], an intelligence-driven advanced persistent threats edge
defense method was presented. Additionally, the authors employed a deep reinforcement
learning method to address edge device response demands.

6.1.2. Man-in-the-Middle
Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) refers to an attack in which a third party (intruder) in-
tercepts communication between two parties without their knowledge, despite the fact
that the data may be encrypted. It is frequently used for hacking purposes in LAN con-
texts [209]. In Ref. [210], authors established a way of protecting data from MITM attacks
by using interlock protocols. To encrypt the process of exchanging information between
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 33 of 50

participants, the author used the Rivest–Shamir–Aldleman (RSA) method. An intrusion

detection system model was also presented in [211] to identify, isolate, and reconfigure
injected nodes on a wireless sensor network (WSN).

6.1.3. Physical Damage

Physical damage is one of the most often seen attacks in edge computing as a result
of intruder manipulation. These attacks occur when an attacker acquires unauthorized
access to an affected device and has the ability to re-configure the device in such a way that
information is misdirected to certain applications [212].

6.1.4. Service or VM Manipulation

The emergence of SGs typically coincides with the widespread deployment of sensors
across different network domains with the purpose of reducing catastrophic power grid
breakdowns. However, irrespective of the benefits posed by these different sensors, attack-
ers being able to manipulate sensing data may result in public fear. Furthermore, illegal
access to vital information about citizens, healthcare systems, end-user data, and possibly
personal identification information could cause widespread panic [213].

6.1.5. False Data Injection

Malware injection attacks entail acts designed to successfully and covertly inject false
information into a computer system with the goal of exploiting the devices’ vulnerabilities.
Among these vulnerabilities include susceptibility to hardware Trojans, device cloning,
less secure wireless protocols, and predictable access control credentials. The possible
consequences for SGs resulting from malware injection attacks are service disruption and
financial loss [201]. Edge devices and low-level edge servers are two of the most vulnerable
components in the edge computing architecture to malware injection attacks. From the
standpoint of edge computing, malware injection attacks may be classified as server-side
(i.e., injections directed at edge servers) or device-side (i.e., injections directed at edge
devices) [214].

6.2. Key Approaches to Solving Cyber Security Issues

Several approaches have been proposed recently to solve the security and privacy
concerns associated with edge computing. The authors in [56] developed a taxonomy
for current security solutions based on the layer of computing paradigm. Among the
methods suggested by the authors for resolving security challenges at the sensing layer are
permission, cryptography, image processing, and collision detection. In a separate article,
the authors in [202] also provided a brief summary of the issues mentioned above. The so-
lution in [215] introduced a novel authentication technique to reduce the threats posed by
frequent data flow between smart devices and utility centers in Singapore. Additionally,
the authors attempted to increase the efficiency of disaster recovery management by using
their recommended method.
To address the security difficulties (MITM, sniffer, and location-based attacks) encoun-
tered by MEC during compute offloading, the authors in [202] suggested a software-defined
perimeter (SDP) architecture to augment MEC. In Ref. [132], a polymorphic heterogeneous
security architecture for edge-enabled SG was suggested. Additionally, they provided
a feedback method to address issues resulting from hardware and software similarity,
singleness, and SG static. This is referred to as a closed-loop feedback system. To ac-
complish the requisite security and scalability for IoT and edge computing integration,
the potential of blockchain’s peer-to-peer distributed ledger was carefully investigated
from a variety of angles, including anonymity, integrity, and flexibility in [216]. The security
situational awareness of SGs was analyzed using the suggested framework based on deep
reinforcement learning algorithms and the multiagent deep deterministic policy gradient
edge computing paradigm described in [27].
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 34 of 50

6.2.1. ML and DL Algorithms for Cybersecurity

As explained in further detail below, ML and DL algorithms are among the most exten-
sively used strategies for mitigating the limits and constraints associated with traditional
cybersecurity approaches. Recent research has demonstrated that these strategies may
be utilized to identify any cyber attacks directed at the network of interest. Additionally,
ML is regarded as a vital component of cybersecurity, since it can be used at both the
attacker and defender sides. For example, the objective in [217] was to assess existing ML
approaches (i.e., random forest, SVM, naive Bayes, decision trees, ANN, and deep belief
networks) with the goal of demonstrating their capability for identifying cybersecurity
risks. This investigation was conducted in the context of three primary threats: intrusion,
spam, and malware detection.

Support Vector Machine

Support vector machine (SVM) has been identified as a suitable machine learning
method for improving the performance of various cybersecurity applications. Presently,
SVM’s high resource consumption (in terms of time and space) restricts its usage, partic-
ularly in real-time applications. According to [218], SVM transforms data using kernels
with the goal of discovering the best border between samples. The authors in [219] de-
veloped a model that combines multi-layer SVM and deep feature extraction to detect
abnormal behavior in large-scale network traffic data in order to assure efficient security in
distributed networks.

K-Nearest Neighbor
Essentially, the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) technique employs a distance function
(such as Euclidean, Manhattan, or Minkowski) to determine the difference and similarity
between two classes within a dataset [220]. In recent times, data have evolved in a variety
of ways, which may not be feasible for other ML algorithms, but it is for KNNs because
they make no prior assumptions about the data [221].

Decision Tree
The decision tree is a supervised learning method in which the labeled dataset is
used to accurately predict the model’s output. This ML approach is characterized as a
supervised learning algorithm with a structure resembling a flowchart tree. Along with the
multilayer perceptron processing technique, a decision tree was used in [222] to enhance
the preprocessing of the large-scale cybersecurity dataset (UGR’16) in order to boost the
performance of the anomaly detection model.

Deep Belief Network

A deep belief network comprises multiple layers, each of which may act as a re-
stricted Boltzmann machine [217]. This approach may be helpful for applications involving
large-scale datasets in the context of cybersecurity (high-dimensional data). In Ref. [223],
the authors undertook a thorough study of the application of deep belief networks and
other deep learning methods in cybersecurity. Similarly, the authors in [224] compared the
overall performance of the deep belief network to that of a state-preserving extreme learn-
ing machine method using the NSL-KDD dataset for face recognition, pedestrian detection,
and intrusion detection. In Ref. [225], a secured architecture was developed based on a deep
neural network for detecting malicious detection attacks on SCADA systems by leveraging
traffic and payload attributes as network performance metrics. A blockchain-based model
of a healthcare system was used to identify intrusions in [226].

Recurrent Neural Networks

The recurrent neural network (RNN) can be characterized by its directed graph struc-
ture design composed of interconnected nodes. Additionally, RNN generates signals that
travel in both directions and introduces loops into the network. In comparison to feedfor-
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 35 of 50

ward neural networks, RNNs are less extensively used in real-time applications for their
highly computational nature. Nevertheless, RNN was utilized in [222] to improve the accu-
racy of intrusion detection systems based on the dataset used. In ref. [227], an innovative
AI-based technique was developed to address false data injection attacks in direct current
(DC) microgrids. To forecast the DC voltages and currents of RESs, these authors used a
subtype of RNNs called the nonlinear auto-regressive exogenous model (NARX). NARX
aims to improve network performance in terms of speed, accuracy, and learning potential
as compared to standard RNNs [228].

Convolutional Neural Networks

Unlike some other deep learning algorithms, convolutional neural networks (CNNs)
learn directly from raw input, eliminating the requirement for laborious data extraction
prior to training the model. CNNs are often composed of convolutional, multiple hidden
layers, pooling, and fully connected layers. CNN undoubtedly plays a critical role in
the cybersecurity domain. Different methods based on CNN have been proposed to
address a range of security and privacy concerns across a variety of commercial industries.
For example, the CNN was used to develop a multiclass classification model for IoT
networks in a novel anomaly-based intrusion detection methodology [229]. The authors
in [230] employed this algorithm to detect cyber intrusions on industrial control systems
with the goal of replicating a real-time industrial water treatment facility on a smaller scale.
In Ref. [231], authors employed CNN to identify DoS attacks on IoT networks. A unique
deep CNN system for malware detection was also suggested in [232], which also enables
the network to be effectively implemented on a GPU. To identify intrusion attacks on
industrial IoT networks, [233] suggested a multi-CNN fusion approach.

6.2.2. Blockchain for Cybersecurity

The authors in [234] undertook a thorough review of existing works published between
2013 and 2022 that focused only on cybersecurity measures for blockchain-based systems.
Among the approaches are bitcoin (the first cryptocurrency to incorporate blockchain
technology, launched in 2008), ethereum (which permits the use of smart contracts and
was launched in 2015), and the hyperledger project (which comprises software developers
designing and developing blockchain frameworks and platforms). Although blockchain
technology was first associated with bitcoin, it has since expanded in terms of its potential
for use in a range of applications. The discussion in [235] extended previous work on
blockchain technology’s cybersecurity issues. The authors investigated various remedies
to blockchain’s cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The web-based cybersecurity awareness
campaign was implemented to help mitigate the danger of cybercrime in the process [235].
The proposed technique utilizes blockchain technology to essentially safeguard the applica-
tion from any cyber attacks that may be imposed on it. To solve the cybersecurity issue in
the healthcare sector, Ref. [226] presented a blockchain-based data transfer system with a
categorization model.

6.3. Summary and Discussion

Both edge computing and the SG continue to have security flaws as a result of their
extensive deployment of edge nodes and faulty smart meters, respectively. Additionally,
attackers may infiltrate the edge data center and acquire illegal access to the system’s
control privileges, putting end users at risk. Several papers in the literature have sought to
address these shortcomings by combining edge computing with blockchain technology,
for which several efforts have been presented in this section and summarized in Table 7.
EI solves important problems in SGs by combining edge computing and efficient AI
technologies. Nevertheless, in spite of its various advantages, there are still unresolved
research questions and new areas that can be investigated in the future, which will be
discussed in the next section.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 36 of 50

Table 7. Comparison of Different Cybersecurity Approaches.

Application Cybersecurity
Ref Method Contribution
Area Issue

• Devised trust computing to ensure

[236] IoT Trust Blockchain reliability
• New content model to encrypt hot
data

• DoS attacks • Implement SDP within LTE net-

[202] LTE Networks • DDoS SDP works
• MITM

• Privacy protec- • Guarantee user’s validity

[127] Smart Grid tion Blockchain • Novel solution for traceable en-
• Energy secu- ergy governance
rity

• Cyber attacks • Successful use of 1D CNN

Industrial
[230] • Anomalies CNN • Comparison of different neural
control systems
networks architectures

• Introduce blockchain-based mu-

[237] Smart Grid Security Blockchain tual authentication and key agree-
ment protocol

7. Research Challenges and Future Directions

Through the combination of edge computing and efficient AI technologies, edge
intelligence delivers significant solutions to major difficulties faced by SGs. Despite its
benefits, there are still unanswered research questions and prospective areas that can be
explored in future studies and a few are discussed here.

7.1. Resource Management

Recently, the trend of facilitating edge computing has become prominent in most,
if not all, IoT applications. There are still some issues with edge computing that need to
be solved before it can be used to its full potential in IoT applications. One of the main
problems in edge computing is successfully managing data processing at the edge in the
shortest amount of time possible. There has been a significant number of papers published
in the literature that have focused on the application of ML algorithms to handle data
processing in edge computing. There is no doubt that ML algorithms will dramatically
improve the performance of the edge computing paradigm in a variety of ways. However,
ML techniques have several disadvantages that may result in performance reduction of
edge computing applications in IoT-enabled infrastructures such as SGs. To this goal, we
describe the issues inherent in edge computing’s processing and computation management.

7.1.1. Communication and Big Data Processing at the Edge

From a processing and communication standpoint, the use of ML algorithms have
considerably enhanced the overall performance of the edge computing paradigm in terms
of latency, energy efficiency, and dependability. Since data would be completely outsourced
to the edge, accuracy and flexibility will remain challenges in this architecture. Addition-
ally, the majority of edge devices have little computational capabilities. To cope with the
intermittent demands generated by distributed applications, edge computing architectures
should be scalable and adaptable. The IoT and sensing devices are becoming increasingly
prevalent, as are the data they generate. This places the Internet cloud in a new communica-
tion and energy predicament. DL has recently been demonstrated to be a useful approach
to tackle many problems in many different applications, however its slow computing speed
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 37 of 50

creates problems with processing and communication. This makes it difficult to deploy in a
variety of different and time-critical edge computing applications.

7.1.2. Load Balancing

Load balancing may be accomplished in edge computing by effectively and efficiently
offloading an end user’s workload to many edge data centers, therefore dramatically
reducing intra-data center migration. Given the heterogeneity of data generated by IoT
devices in SGs, which manifests itself in a number of ways (i.e., volume, variety, velocity,
etc.), load distribution across edge data centers may need to be changed to account for
the diversity of end-user workload. Additionally, SGs have emerged as a result of the
inclusion of mobile networks such as 5G, which include mobile devices that regularly
switch locations. In this way, traditional load balancing solutions are becoming increasingly
difficult as load circumstances change [238]. To address this issue, a new load balancing
mechanism that takes into consideration the mobility of edge computing may need to be
developed in the future.
To address the resource management difficulties described above, the convergence of
5G ultra-dense and edge computing [40] may be investigated further in order to meet the
network’s computation and communication needs.

7.2. Advanced AI Technologies

Despite the benefits of AI applications, it is worth noting that some AI technologies
continue to face difficulties in their deployment in the complex edge intelligence environ-
ment [239]. Recent studies have examined approaches to enhance the performance of AI
techniques. There are limited studies in the literature that demonstrate how to make AI
systems more adaptive, allowing them to fully use their human intelligence side, as the
definition states.

7.3. Intelligent Computation Offloading

Computation offloading is a critical feature arising with the edge computing paradigm,
allowing for the partitioning of resource-intensive computation workloads into manageable
subtasks for onward transfer to resource-rich edge clouds or edge servers. Computation
offloading in edge computing involves more than simply splitting and offloading activities
to a nearby edge cloud or edge server; it is also about determining how to offload, when
to offload, and what to offload. Several previous studies assumed that the solutions to
one or more of the aforementioned essential problems were already known. With those
three issues in mind, a full analysis and detailed architecture demonstrating the process
of compute offloading in edge computing can be examined further. Additionally, while it
is apparent that the application of AI to edge computing is gaining momentum everyday,
there are few, if any, papers in the literature that have committed to completely exploiting
AI technologies from a compute offloading viewpoint. Given the complexity of intelligent
offloading, a number of aspects must be considered in order to achieve the purpose of this
novel concept.

7.4. Secured and Robust Situational Awareness Framework for Smart Grid
Situational awareness is one of the critical applications that will emerge as a result of SG
implementation. This application is defined by a low tolerance for data transmission delays
and by its crucial role in the “big data” age of power grids. Notably, the widespread IoT
devices and massive number of intelligent terminals accessing SG provide massive amounts
and types of data, which may be both a “curse” and a “blessing” for next-generation
power grids. From a technological standpoint, information retrieved from these data
may be used to identify unique scenarios for future decision-making and monitoring of
power grid domains, considerably improving the production and general functioning of
SG infrastructure. In order to ensure the security and robustness of an SGs’ situational
awareness, there are a few factors to consider, noted as follows:
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 38 of 50

• SG’s control system must work consistently and be responsive to any real-time dangers
detected in such an environment. However, cloud-based SG architectures struggle to
meet the requirements for swiftly responding to real-time threats without degrading
end-user QoS.
• Due to sensitivity of data acquired from SGs and IoT devices such as smart meters,
and sensors, SGs must have an uncompromising level of security, as they can be
vulnerable to cyber assaults.
• Due to the variability of power terminals and the diversity of communication protocols,
SGs have faced a number of interconversion and interoperability issues. Additionally,
there are issues with establishing and deploying diverse networks, administering and
sustaining networks. This complicates the efficient and effective utilization of a large
number of various terminals in SGs.
Thus, future research might examine the establishment of a secure and resilient situa-
tional awareness for the deployment of SGs through the use of cutting-edge technologies
such as edge computing, AI, and blockchain synergy as a possible solution to the aforemen-
tioned difficulties.

7.5. Privacy Concerns

Current research indicates that edge computing will potentially transform how we
approach the SG paradigm. However, given the sensitivity of the data acquired in SG,
privacy and security continue to be the most difficult concerns in this paradigm today.
Additionally, the majority of edge computing applications support location awareness,
which may contribute to the worry about privacy in SGs by requiring end-device location
information prior to conducting computation operations. To ensure the safety of end users
in SGs and the infrastructure’s reliability, a privacy preservation strategy that takes into
consideration the latency needs of SGs can be devised. To address the issue of privacy
in SGs, an encryption method should be developed that takes inference and other cyber
threats into consideration. A future research might examine the use of distributed ledger
technologies, such as blockchain, to enhance the security of location privacy in edge
computing-aided SG.

7.6. Facilitation of Two-Way Communication

In comparison to traditional power grids, SG aims to enable the bidirectional flow
of electricity and information across grid domains with the goal of improving the grid’s
overall performance in terms of latency, energy efficiency, to name a few. To accomplish
this, AMI is intended to deploy a considerable number of smart meters, allowing for regular
acquisition of power consumption data from all the smart electrical gadgets installed within
the consumer’s premises. Additionally, this enables customers to maintain a sustained
communication channel with power suppliers prior to implementing additional power
management orders and making grid operating choices. Because consumers’ premises are
exposed to both cyber and physical attacks, this compromises both their privacy and the
stability of electricity systems. In this regard, the SGs infrastructure has a new problem in
terms of guaranteeing adequate security for these devices. The AMI system may be used to
investigate the potential synergies between emerging AI and blockchain technologies.

7.7. Access Control Mechanisms

Despite the benefits of SGs’ decentralized structure, monitoring and controlling geo-
graphically distributed devices under this new paradigm is a difficult task. Additionally,
the access control techniques employed in SGs must be adaptable and sensitive to any
emergency circumstance that may occur on the network, ensuring that the appropriate
persons have the appropriate credentials.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 39 of 50

7.8. Trust
The operation and advancement of SGs as a whole are significantly reliant on sensed
data and control commands, often used to perform the majority, if not all, of their functions.
In this sense, these data, as well as communicated commands, should not be taken at face
value, but rather verified and permitted prior to implementation in SGs. Additionally,
because SG is a complex and diverse paradigm, identifying malware injection attacks in real
time becomes a significant difficulty, much more so when we rely on algorithms originally
created for the sole goal of detecting defects [201].

7.9. Practical Implications of Research Directions

Following the above challenges and future research directions, we highlight a sum-
mary of the practical implications of EI in SGs based on our present survey as follows:
1. A decrease in latency: The use of edge computing can make it possible to drasti-
cally cut down on the amount of time spent transmitting data within different SG
elements. This will contribute to the real-time monitoring of frequency and voltage
characteristics within the grid, hence eliminating power factor penalties.
2. Privacy of transmitted data: While there is a significant risk of data leakage and
other security issues associated with SGs, it has become abundantly evident that
edge intelligence may help limit these kinds of problems to a significant degree. This
is something that can be accomplished by performing computations, storing data,
and processing them locally, as well as having the capacity to identify abnormalities
using machine learning algorithms.
3. Capabilities to engage in transactive energy: The edge intelligence present in SGs has
the potential to facilitate the easier integration of microgrids, which in turn makes it
possible for prosumers and energy providers to engage in economic transactions. This
will further guarantee that there is a fair balance of demand and supply within the
network, which will ultimately result in the grid becoming more stable and reliable.
4. Increased dependability as a result of regular power status reports: Edge intelligence
will make real-time transmission of network parameters possible, which will improve
both the analysis of and the response to grid outages.
5. Decentralized voltage control: Due to the incorporation of microgrids in SGs, there
is a larger potential for voltage instability throughout the grid. Edge intelligence
provides a decentralized framework for monitoring these oscillations and promptly
implementing mitigation techniques to reduce their consequences.
6. Asset management and planning: Because of the ever-increasing growth in the pro-
duction, acquisition, and incorporation of renewable energy into the grid, there is a
growing demand for asset management and planning that accounts for expansion
within the grid. Edge intelligence provides a platform for the real-time documenting
of such assets, as well as the analysis of their influence on the growth of the grid and
the potential for future projections about the expansion and deployment of new assets.

8. Conclusions
EI has demonstrated significant potential as an enabling technology in a variety of
enterprises. It may be regarded a realistic strategy for rapidly deploying the possible
applications and services associated with SGs. This article has discussed EI-based SGs
in detail, with an emphasis on architectures, computation offloading, and cybersecurity
concerns and solutions. Separately, the ideas of EI and SGs were examined to gain a
fundamental knowledge of each. A three-layer hierarchical design structure was proposed
to study an EI-based architecture appropriate for SG implementation purposes. This
structure begins at the first (i.e., lowest) level (edge devices), which comprises the IoT-based
smart devices used across all SG domains (i.e., generation, transportation, distribution,
and consumption). The second layer (edge node) is responsible for providing some of the
computation resources transferred from the Internet cloud. Then, on the third tier (fog
node-server layer), data analysis and reduction are performed, as well as control responses.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 40 of 50

In summary, these layers constitute an ordered and decentralized architecture for deploying
EI in SGs. While this design has demonstrated amazing benefits, security and privacy
issues continue to be an underlying concern. Thus, we have conducted a survey of some of
the most cutting-edge studies on cybersecurity solutions. As evidenced by the literature,
blockchain technology has been considered as a viable solution. Summarily, this article will
be of interest to the budding researcher who may be curious in becoming acquainted with
the state-of-the-art principles necessary for comprehending the use of EI in SG systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.N.M. and A.J.O.; Funding acquisition, A.M.A.-M.;

Investigation, D.N.M.; Methodology, D.N.M.; Project administration, A.J.O. and A.M.A.-M.; Supervision,
A.J.O. and A.M.A.-M.; Writing—original draft, D.N.M.; Writing—review & editing, A.J.O. and A.M.A.-M.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and
The APC was funded by project number 05400 054AT KR3EEMG.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

List of Abbreviations
Acronym Meaning
3G Third Generation
4G Fourth Generation
5G Fifth Generation
ACS-CLPSO Ant Colony System-Comprehensive Learning Particle Swarm Optimizer
ADMM Alternating Direction of Method Multipliers
AI Artificial Intelligence
AIoT Artificial Intelligence of Things
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
ANN Artificial Neural Network
AR Augmented Reality
BiJOR Bilevel Optimization Approach
BP Back-Propagation
BRI Better Response with Inertia
CBDS Cooperative Bait Detection Scheme
CNN Convolutional Neural Network
CO2 Carbon diOxide
CPU Central Processing Unit
DC Direct Current
DDoS Distributed Denial of Service
DG Distributed Generation
DG Distributed Generaion
DL Distributed Learning
DLT Distributed Ledger Technology
DoS Denial of Service
DR Demand Response
DSM Demand Side Management
EC Edge Computing
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 41 of 50

EI Edge Intelligence
eMBB Enhanced Mobile Broadband
EnPEO-DBN Ensemble Population External Optimization-Based Deep Belief Network
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
EVs Electric Vehicles
FL Federated Learning
G2V Grid to Vehicle
HAN Home Area Networks
HEMS Home Energy Management Systems
IBM International Business Machines
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IoT Internet of Things
IoVs Internet of Vehicles
IT Information Technology
K-NN K-Nearest Neighbor
LAN Local Area Networks
MAS Multi-Agent System
MDMS Meter Data Management System
MEC Mobile Edge Computing
MECO Mobile Edge Computation Offloading
MITM Man-in-the-Middle
ML Machine Learning
MM Mobility Management
mMTC Massive Machine Type Communications
NANs Neighborhood Area Network
NILM Non-Intrusive Load Monitoring
OD Offloading Decision
OOCS Optimal Offloading with Caching-Enhancement Scheme
OOCS Optimal Offloading with Caching-Enhancement Scheme
P2P Peer-to-Peer
PEO Population External Optimization
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
PPP Public Private Partnerships
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
QoE Quality of Experience
QoS Quality of Service
RA Resource Allocation
RES Renewable Energy Source
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RNN Recurrent Neural Network
RTUs Remote Terminal Units
SAS Substation Automation Systems
SBSs Small-Cell Base Stations
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDP Software Defined Perimeter
SGD Stochastic Gradient Descent
SGs Smart Grids
SVM Support Vector Machine
UAVs Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
uRLLC Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications
V2G Vehicle to Grid
VMs Virtual Machines
VR Virtual Reality
WANs Wide Area Networks
WASA Wide Area Situational Awareness
WSN Wireless Sensor Network
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 42 of 50

References
1. Mishra, J.; Sheetlani, J.; Reddy, K.H.K.; Roy, D.S. A novel edge-supported cost-efficient resource management approach for smart
grid system. In Progress in Computing, Analytics and Networking; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 369–380.
2. Yao, J.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Bai, J.; Wang, J.; Lin, P. Cost-efficient tasks scheduling for smart grid communication network with edge
computing system. In Proceedings of the 2019 15th International Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing Conference
(IWCMC), Tangier, Morocco, 24–28 June 2019; pp. 272–277.
3. Molokomme, D.N.; Chabalala, C.S.; Bokoro, P.N. A review of cognitive radio smart grid communication infrastructure systems.
Energies 2020, 13, 3245. [CrossRef]
4. Kabalci, E.; Kabalci, Y. Smart Grids and Their Communication Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019.
5. Slama, S.B. Prosumer in smart grids based on intelligent edge computing: A review on Artificial Intelligence Scheduling
Techniques. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 13, 101514.
6. Mehmood, M.Y.; Oad, A.; Abrar, M.; Munir, H.M.; Hasan, S.F.; Muqeet, H.; Golilarz, N.A. Edge computing for IoT-enabled smart
grid. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2021, 2021, 5524025. [CrossRef]
7. U.S. Department of Energy. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/oe/office-electricity (accessed on 24 April 2022 ).
8. Strategic National Smart Grid Vision for the South African Electricity Supply Industry. Available online: https://www.ee.co.za/
wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Smart-Grid-Vision-Document-2017.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022 ).
9. Onumanyi, A.J.; Isaac, S.J.; Kruger, C.P.; Abu-Mahfouz, A.M. Transactive energy: State-of-the-art in control strategies, architectures,
and simulators. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 131552–131573. [CrossRef]
10. Gungor, V.C.; Sahin, D.; Kocak, T.; Ergut, S.; Buccella, C.; Cecati, C.; Hancke, G.P. Smart grid technologies: Communication
technologies and standards. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2011, 7, 529–539. [CrossRef]
11. Bera, S.; Misra, S.; Rodrigues, J.J. Cloud computing applications for smart grid: A survey. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2014,
26, 1477–1494. [CrossRef]
12. Li, Q.; Deng, Y.; Sun, W.; Li, W. Communication and Computation Resource Allocation and Offloading for Edge Intelligence
Enabled Fault Detection System in Smart Grid. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications,
Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm), Tempe, AZ, USA, 11–13 November 2020; pp. 1–7.
13. Zhao, S.; Li, F.; Li, H.; Lu, R.; Ren, S.; Bao, H.; Lin, J.H.; Han, S. Smart and practical privacy-preserving data aggregation for
fog-based smart grids. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2020, 16, 521–536. [CrossRef]
14. Jiang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Song, H.; Wang, W. Intelligent optimization-based energy-efficient networking in cloud services for
multimedia big data. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 37th International Performance Computing and Communications
Conference (IPCCC), Orlando, FL, USA, 17–19 November 2018; pp. 1–6.
15. Goyal, S.; Bhushan, S.; Kumar, Y.; Rana, A.u.H.S.; Bhutta, M.R.; Ijaz, M.F.; Son, Y. An optimized framework for energy-resource
allocation in a cloud environment based on the whale optimization algorithm. Sensors 2021, 21, 1583. [CrossRef]
16. Aslanpour, M.S.; Gill, S.S.; Toosi, A.N. Performance evaluation metrics for cloud, fog and edge computing: A review, taxonomy,
benchmarks and standards for future research. Internet Things 2020, 12, 100273. [CrossRef]
17. Mach, P.; Becvar, Z. Mobile edge computing: A survey on architecture and computation offloading. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor.
2017, 19, 1628–1656. [CrossRef]
18. Mao, Y.; You, C.; Zhang, J.; Huang, K.; Letaief, K.B. A survey on mobile edge computing: The communication perspective. IEEE
Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 2322–2358. [CrossRef]
19. Yang, R.; Yu, F.R.; Si, P.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, Y. Integrated blockchain and edge computing systems: A survey, some research issues
and challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2019, 21, 1508–1532. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, X.; Biagioni, D.; Cai, M.; Graf, P.; Rahman, S. An edge-cloud integrated solution for buildings demand response using
reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2020, 12, 420–431. [CrossRef]
21. Chang, Z.; Liu, S.; Xiong, X.; Cai, Z.; Tu, G. A survey of recent advances in edge-computing-powered artificial intelligence of
things. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021, 8, 13849–13875. [CrossRef]
22. Deng, S.; Zhao, H.; Fang, W.; Yin, J.; Dustdar, S.; Zomaya, A.Y. Edge intelligence: The confluence of edge computing and artificial
intelligence. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 7457–7469. [CrossRef]
23. Meloni, A.; Pegoraro, P.A.; Atzori, L.; Benigni, A.; Sulis, S. Cloud-based IoT solution for state estimation in smart grids: Exploiting
virtualization and edge-intelligence technologies. Comput. Netw. 2018, 130, 156–165. [CrossRef]
24. Hudson, N.; Hossain, M.J.; Hosseinzadeh, M.; Khamfroush, H.; Rahnamay-Naeini, M.; Ghani, N. A framework for edge
intelligent smart distribution grids via federated learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Computer
Communications and Networks (ICCCN), Athens, Greece, 19–22 July 2021; pp. 1–9.
25. Ghosh, A.M.; Grolinger, K. Edge-cloud computing for Internet of Things data analytics: Embedding intelligence in the edge with
deep learning. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 17, 2191–2200.
26. Lodhi, A.H.; Akgün, B.; Özkasap, Ö. State-of-the-art techniques in deep edge intelligence. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2008.00824.
27. Lei, W.; Wen, H.; Wu, J.; Hou, W. MADDPG-based security situational awareness for smart grid with intelligent edge. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 3101. [CrossRef]
28. Guo, S.; Dai, Y.; Guo, S.; Qiu, X.; Qi, F. Blockchain meets edge computing: Stackelberg game and double auction based task
offloading for mobile blockchain. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 5549–5561. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 43 of 50

29. Islam, S.; Badsha, S.; Sengupta, S.; La, H.; Khalil, I.; Atiquzzaman, M. Blockchain-enabled intelligent vehicular edge computing.
IEEE Netw. 2021, 35, 125–131. [CrossRef]
30. Zhuang, P.; Zamir, T.; Liang, H. Blockchain for cybersecurity in smart grid: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.
2020, 17, 3–19. [CrossRef]
31. Rigas, E.S.; Ramchurn, S.D.; Bassiliades, N. Managing electric vehicles in the smart grid using artificial intelligence: A survey.
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2014, 16, 1619–1635. [CrossRef]
32. Gilbert, G.M.; Naiman, S.; Kimaro, H.; Bagile, B. A critical review of edge and fog computing for smart grid applications.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania, 1–3 May 2019 ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 763–775.
33. Ferrag, M.A.; Babaghayou, M.; Yazici, M.A. Cyber security for fog-based smart grid SCADA systems: Solutions and challenges. J.
Inf. Secur. Appl. 2020, 52, 102500. [CrossRef]
34. Rosero, D.; Díaz, N.; Trujillo, C. Cloud and machine learning experiments applied to the energy management in a microgrid
cluster. Appl. Energy 2021, 304, 117770. [CrossRef]
35. Feng, C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Ding, Y.; Strbac, G.; Kang, C. Smart grid encounters edge computing: Opportunities and applications.
Adv. Appl. Energy 2021, 1, 100006. [CrossRef]
36. Li, T.; Yang, J.; Cui, D. Artificial-intelligence-based algorithms in multi-access edge computing for the performance optimization
control of a benchmark microgrid. Phys. Commun. 2021, 44, 101240. [CrossRef]
37. Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Guerrero, J.M.; Vasquez, J.C. Digitalization and decentralization driving transactive energy Internet: Key
technologies and infrastructures. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 126, 106593. [CrossRef]
38. Massaoudi, M.; Abu-Rub, H.; Refaat, S.S.; Chihi, I.; Oueslati, F.S. Deep learning in smart grid technology: A review of recent
advancements and future prospects. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 54558–54578. [CrossRef]
39. Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Guerrero, J.M.; Vasquez, J.C. Decentralized transactive energy community in edge grid with positive buildings
and interactive electric vehicles. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2022, 135, 107510. [CrossRef]
40. Yu, S.; Chen, X.; Zhou, Z.; Gong, X.; Wu, D. When deep reinforcement learning meets federated learning: Intelligent multitimescale
resource management for multiaccess edge computing in 5G ultradense network. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 2238–2251.
[CrossRef]
41. Zhou, Z.; Chen, X.; Li, E.; Zeng, L.; Luo, K.; Zhang, J. Edge intelligence: Paving the last mile of artificial intelligence with edge
computing. Proc. IEEE 2019, 107, 1738–1762. [CrossRef]
42. Muniswamaiah, M.; Agerwala, T.; Tappert, C.C. A Survey on Cloudlets, Mobile Edge, and Fog Computing. In Proceedings of
the 2021 8th IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud)/2021 7th IEEE International
Conference on Edge Computing and Scalable Cloud (EdgeCom), Washington, DC, USA, 26–28 June 2021; pp. 139–142.
43. Xu, D.; Li, T.; Li, Y.; Su, X.; Tarkoma, S.; Jiang, T.; Crowcroft, J.; Hui, P. Edge Intelligence: Empowering Intelligence to the Edge of
Network. Proc. IEEE 2021, 109, 1778–1837. [CrossRef]
44. Amin, S.U.; Hossain, M.S. Edge intelligence and Internet of Things in healthcare: A survey. IEEE Access 2020, 9, 45–59. [CrossRef]
45. Liu, Y.; Peng, M.; Shou, G.; Chen, Y.; Chen, S. Toward edge intelligence: Multiaccess edge computing for 5G and internet of
things. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 6722–6747. [CrossRef]
46. Khan, W.Z.; Ahmed, E.; Hakak, S.; Yaqoob, I.; Ahmed, A. Edge computing: A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019,
97, 219–235. [CrossRef]
47. Van Le, D.; Tham, C.K. A deep reinforcement learning based offloading scheme in ad-hoc mobile clouds. In Proceedings of the
IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), Honolulu, HI, USA,
15–19 April 2018; pp. 760–765.
48. Yang, H.; Luo, H.; Ye, F.; Lu, S.; Zhang, L. Security in mobile ad hoc networks: Challenges and solutions. IEEE Wirel. Commun.
2004, 11, 38–47. [CrossRef]
49. Khalaf, O.I.; Ajesh, F.; Hamad, A.A.; Nguyen, G.N.; Le, D.N. Efficient dual-cooperative bait detection scheme for collaborative
attackers on mobile ad-hoc networks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 227962–227969. [CrossRef]
50. Satyanarayanan, M.; Bahl, P.; Caceres, R.; Davies, N. The case for vm-based cloudlets in mobile computing. IEEE Pervasive
Comput. 2009, 8, 14–23. [CrossRef]
51. Taleb, T.; Samdanis, K.; Mada, B.; Flinck, H.; Dutta, S.; Sabella, D. On multi-access edge computing: A survey of the emerging 5G
network edge cloud architecture and orchestration. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 1657–1681. [CrossRef]
52. Yahuza, M.; Idris, M.Y.I.B.; Wahab, A.W.B.A.; Ho, A.T.; Khan, S.; Musa, S.N.B.; Taha, A.Z.B. Systematic review on security and
privacy requirements in edge computing: State of the art and future research opportunities. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 76541–76567.
[CrossRef]
53. Wang, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Yang, J.; Wang, W. A survey on mobile edge networks: Convergence of computing,
caching and communications. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 6757–6779. [CrossRef]
54. Pang, Z.; Sun, L.; Wang, Z.; Tian, E.; Yang, S. A survey of cloudlet based mobile computing. In Proceedings of the 2015
International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data (CCBD), Shanghai, China, 4–6 November 2015; pp. 268–275.
55. Teimoori, Z.; Yassine, A.; Hossain, M.S. A Secure Cloudlet-based Charging Station Recommendation for Electric Vehicles
Empowered by Federated Learning. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2022, 18, 6464–6473. [CrossRef]
56. Puthal, D.; Mohanty, S.P.; Bhavake, S.A.; Morgan, G.; Ranjan, R. Fog computing security challenges and future directions [energy
and security]. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 2019, 8, 92–96. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 44 of 50

57. Zhang, J.; Tao, D. Empowering things with intelligence: A survey of the progress, challenges, and opportunities in artificial
intelligence of things. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 7789–7817. [CrossRef]
58. openfog. OpenFog Reference Architecture for Fog Computing. Available online: https://www.iiconsortium.org/pdf/OpenFog_
Reference_Architecture_2_09_17.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2022 ).
59. Bonomi, F.; Milito, R.; Zhu, J.; Addepalli, S. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In Proceedings of the Proceedings
of the First Edition of the MCC Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing, Helsinki, Finland, 17 August 2012; pp. 13–16.
60. Guevara, J.C.; Torres, R.d.S.; da Fonseca, N.L. On the classification of fog computing applications: A machine learning perspective.
J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2020, 159, 102596. [CrossRef]
61. Khan, S.; Parkinson, S.; Qin, Y. Fog computing security: A review of current applications and security solutions. J. Cloud Comput.
2017, 6, 1–22. [CrossRef]
62. Zhang, P.; Zhou, M.; Fortino, G. Security and trust issues in fog computing: A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 88, 16–27.
[CrossRef]
63. Barik, R.K.; Gudey, S.K.; Reddy, G.G.; Pant, M.; Dubey, H.; Mankodiya, K.; Kumar, V. FogGrid: Leveraging fog computing for
enhanced smart grid network. In Proceedings of the 2017 14th IEEE India Council International Conference (INDICON), Roorkee,
India, 15–17 December 2017; pp. 1–6.
64. Hussain, M.; Beg, M. Fog computing for internet of things (IoT)-aided smart grid architectures. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2019, 3, 8.
[CrossRef]
65. Preden, J.S.; Tammemäe, K.; Jantsch, A.; Leier, M.; Riid, A.; Calis, E. The benefits of self-awareness and attention in fog and mist
computing. Computer 2015, 48, 37–45. [CrossRef]
66. Galambos, P. Cloud, fog, and mist computing: Advanced robot applications. IEEE Syst. Man Cybern. Mag. 2020, 6, 41–45.
[CrossRef]
67. Li, X.; Huang, X.; Li, C.; Yu, R.; Shu, L. EdgeCare: Leveraging edge computing for collaborative data management in mobile
healthcare systems. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 22011–22025. [CrossRef]
68. Babirye, S.; Serugunda, J.; Okello, D.; Mwanje, S. Resource-Aware Workload Orchestration for Edge Computing. In Proceedings
of the 2020 28th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR), Belgrade, Serbia, 24–25 November 2020; pp. 1–4.
69. Okwuide, J.; Haavisto, J.; Harjula, E.; Ahmad, I.; Ylianttila, M. SDN Enhanced Resource Orchestration for Industrial IoT in
Containerized Edge Applications. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 2169–3536.
70. Guim, F.; Metsch, T.; Moustafa, H.; Verrall, T.; Carrera, D.; Cadendelli, N.; Chen, J.; Doria, D.; Ghadie, C. Autonomous Lifecyle
Management for Resource-efficient Workload Orchestration for Green Edge Computing. IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. 2021,
6, 571–582. [CrossRef]
71. Sonmez, C.; Ozgovde, A.; Ersoy, C. Fuzzy workload orchestration for edge computing. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2019,
16, 769–782. [CrossRef]
72. Ndiaye, M.; Abu-Mahfouz, A.M.; Hancke, G.P.; Silva, B. Exploring control-message quenching in SDN-based management of
6LowPANs. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 17th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), Helsinki-Espoo,
Finland, 22–25 July 2019; Volume 1, pp. 890–983.
73. Wu, Y. Cloud-edge orchestration for the Internet of Things: Architecture and AI-powered data processing. IEEE Internet Things J.
2020, 8, 12792–12805. [CrossRef]
74. Zhou, Z.; Wu, Q.; Chen, X. Online orchestration of cross-edge service function chaining for cost-efficient edge computing. IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun. 2019, 37, 1866–1880. [CrossRef]
75. Chen, S.; Wen, H.; Wu, J.; Lei, W.; Hou, W.; Liu, W.; Xu, A.; Jiang, Y. Internet of things based smart grids supported by intelligent
edge computing. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 74089–74102. [CrossRef]
76. Kumari, A.; Tanwar, S.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N.; Obaidat, M.S.; Rodrigues, J.J. Fog computing for smart grid systems in the 5G
environment: Challenges and solutions. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2019, 26, 47–53. [CrossRef]
77. Ning, Z.; Dong, P.; Wang, X.; Hu, X.; Guo, L.; Hu, B.; Guo, Y.; Qiu, T.; Kwok, R.Y. Mobile edge computing enabled 5G health
monitoring for Internet of medical things: A decentralized game theoretic approach. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2020, 39, 463–478.
[CrossRef]
78. Gohar, A.; Nencioni, G. The role of 5G technologies in a smart city: The case for intelligent transportation system. Sustainability
2021, 13, 5188. [CrossRef]
79. Hassan, N.; Yau, K.L.A.; Wu, C. Edge computing in 5G: A review. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 127276–127289. [CrossRef]
80. Shi, W.; Cao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, L. Edge computing: Vision and challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 637–646.
[CrossRef]
81. Krichmar, J.L.; Severa, W.; Khan, M.S.; Olds, J.L. Making BREAD: Biomimetic strategies for artificial intelligence now and in the
future. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 666. [CrossRef]
82. Olowononi, F.O.; Rawat, D.B.; Liu, C. Resilient machine learning for networked cyber physical systems: A survey for machine
learning security to securing machine learning for cps. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2020, 23, 524–552. [CrossRef]
83. Ji, H.; Alfarraj, O.; Tolba, A. Artificial intelligence-empowered edge of vehicles: Architecture, enabling technologies, and
applications. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 61020–61034. [CrossRef]
84. Sodhro, A.H.; Pirbhulal, S.; De Albuquerque, V.H.C. Artificial intelligence-driven mechanism for edge computing-based industrial
applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 4235–4243. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 45 of 50

85. Shirazi, S.N.; Gouglidis, A.; Farshad, A.; Hutchison, D. The extended cloud: Review and analysis of mobile edge computing and
fog from a security and resilience perspective. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2017, 35, 2586–2595. [CrossRef]
86. He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Qiu, C.; Lin, Q.; Li, J.; Ming, Z. Blockchain-based edge computing resource allocation in IoT: A deep reinforcement
learning approach. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 2226–2237. [CrossRef]
87. Gunaratne, N.G.T.; Abdollahian, M.; Huda, S.; Ali, M.; Frontino, G. An edge tier task offloading to identify sources of variance
shifts in smart grid using a hybrid of wrapper and filter approaches. IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. 2021, 6, 329–340.
[CrossRef]
88. Zhu, Z.; Tian, Y.; Li, F.; Yang, H.; Ma, Z.; Rong, G. Research on edge intelligence-based security analysis method for power
operation system. In Proceedings of the 2020 7th IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing
(CSCloud)/2020 6th IEEE International Conference on Edge Computing and Scalable Cloud (EdgeCom), New York, NY, USA,
1–3 August 2020; pp. 258–263.
89. Huh, J.H.; Seo, Y.S. Understanding edge computing: Engineering evolution with artificial intelligence. IEEE Access 2019,
7, 164229–164245. [CrossRef]
90. Chung, H.M.; Maharjan, S.; Zhang, Y.; Eliassen, F.; Yuan, T. Edge Intelligence Empowered UAV s for Automated Wind Farm
Monitoring in Smart Grids. In Proceedings of the GLOBECOM 2020–2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference, Taipei,
Taiwan, 7–11 December 2020; pp. 1–6.
91. Huang, Z.; Dong, F.; Shen, D.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; Cai, G.; He, Q. Enabling Low Latency Edge Intelligence based on Multi-exit
DNNs in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 41st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS),
Washington DC, USA, 7–10 July 2021; pp. 729–739.
92. Van Huynh, D.; Khosravirad, S.R.; Masaracchia, A.; Dobre, O.A.; Duong, T.Q. Edge Intelligence-based Ultra-Reliable and
Low-Latency Communications for Digital Twin-enabled Metaverse. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2022, 11, 1733–1737. [CrossRef]
93. Hu, R.Q. Mobility-aware edge caching and computing in vehicle networks: A deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol. 2018, 67, 10190–10203.
94. Zhang, H.; Wang, R.; Liu, J. Mobility Management for Ultra-Dense Edge Computing: A Reinforcement Learning Approach. In
Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 90th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Fall), Honolulu, HI, USA, 22–25 September 2019;
pp. 1–5.
95. Dai, Y.; Zhang, K.; Maharjan, S.; Zhang, Y. Edge intelligence for energy-efficient computation offloading and resource allocation
in 5G beyond. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 12175–12186. [CrossRef]
96. Baumeister, T. Literature Review on Smart Grid Cyber Security; Collaborative Software Development Laboratory at the University
of Hawaii: Honolulu, HI, USA , 2010; Volume 650.
97. Kuzlu, M.; Pipattanasompom, M.; Rahman, S. A comprehensive review of smart grid related standards and protocols. In
Proceedings of the 2017 5th International Istanbul Smart Grid and Cities Congress and Fair (ICSG), Istanbul, Turkey, 19–21 April
2017; pp. 12–16. doi: 10.1109/SGCF.2017.7947600. [CrossRef]
98. Liu, Y.; Yang, C.; Jiang, L.; Xie, S.; Zhang, Y. Intelligent edge computing for IoT-based energy management in smart cities. IEEE
Netw. 2019, 33, 111–117. [CrossRef]
99. Fang, X.; Misra, S.; Xue, G.; Yang, D. Smart grid: The new and improved power grid: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2011,
14, 944–980. [CrossRef]
100. Electricity, Gas and Water Supply Industry. 2016. Available online: https://http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-41
-01-02/Report-41-01-022016.pdf (accessed on 05 February 2022 ).
101. Ibrahim, I.D.; Hamam, Y.; Alayli, Y.; Jamiru, T.; Sadiku, E.R.; Kupolati, W.K.; Ndambuki, J.M.; Eze, A.A. A review on Africa
energy supply through renewable energy production: Nigeria, Cameroon, Ghana and South Africa as a case study. Energy
Strategy Rev. 2021, 38, 100740. [CrossRef]
102. Kulkarni, S.; Gu, Q.; Myers, E.; Polepeddi, L.; Lipták, S.; Beyah, R.; Divan, D. Enabling a decentralized smart grid using
autonomous edge control devices. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 7406–7419. [CrossRef]
103. Hussain, S.S.; Tak, A.; Ustun, T.S.; Ali, I. Communication modeling of solar home system and smart meter in smart grids. IEEE
Access 2018, 6, 16985–16996. [CrossRef]
104. Siddiqui, I.F.; Lee, S.U.J.; Abbas, A.; Bashir, A.K. Optimizing lifespan and energy consumption by smart meters in green-cloud-
based smart grids. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 20934–20945. [CrossRef]
105. Albayati, A.; Abdullah, N.F.; Abu-Samah, A.; Mutlag, A.H.; Nordin, R. A serverless advanced metering infrastructure based on
fog-edge computing for a smart grid: A comparison study for energy sector in Iraq. Energies 2020, 13, 5460. [CrossRef]
106. Yoldaş, Y.; Önen, A.; Muyeen, S.; Vasilakos, A.V.; Alan, I. Enhancing smart grid with microgrids: Challenges and opportunities.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 205–214. [CrossRef]
107. Liu, C.H.; Gu, J.C. Modeling and integrating PV stations into IEC 61850 XMPP intelligent edge computing gateway. Energies
2019, 12, 1442. [CrossRef]
108. Farhangi, H. The path of the smart grid. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2009, 8, 18–28. [CrossRef]
109. Senarathna, T.; Hemapala, K.U. Review of adaptive protection methods for microgrids. AIMS Energy 2019, 7, 557–578. [CrossRef]
110. Usama, M.; Mokhlis, H.; Moghavvemi, M.; Mansor, N.N.; Alotaibi, M.A.; Muhammad, M.A.; Bajwa, A.A. A comprehensive
review on protection strategies to mitigate the impact of renewable energy sources on interconnected distribution networks. IEEE
Access 2021, 9, 35740–35765. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 46 of 50

111. Mahat, P.; Chen, Z.; Bak-Jensen, B. Review on islanding operation of distribution system with distributed generation. In
Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA, 24–28 July 2011; pp. 1–8.
112. Khamis, A.; Shareef, H.; Bizkevelci, E.; Khatib, T. A review of islanding detection techniques for renewable distributed generation
systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 483–493. [CrossRef]
113. Norshahrani, M.; Mokhlis, H.; Abu Bakar, A.H.; Jamian, J.J.; Sukumar, S. Progress on protection strategies to mitigate the impact
of renewable distributed generation on distribution systems. Energies 2017, 10, 1864. [CrossRef]
114. AsghariGovar, S.; Pourghasem, P.; Seyedi, H. High impedance fault protection scheme for smart grids based on WPT and ELM
considering evolving and cross-country faults. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 107, 412–421. [CrossRef]
115. Menezes, T.S.; Fernandes, R.A.; Coury, D.V. Intelligent islanding detection with grid topology adaptation and minimum
non-detection zone. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 187, 106470. [CrossRef]
116. Bakkar, M.; Bogarra, S.; Córcoles, F.; Aboelhassan, A.; Wang, S.; Iglesias, J. Artificial Intelligence-Based Protection for Smart Grids.
Energies 2022, 15, 4933. [CrossRef]
117. Khamis, A.; Xu, Y.; Dong, Z.Y.; Zhang, R. Faster detection of microgrid islanding events using an adaptive ensemble classifier.
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 9, 1889–1899. [CrossRef]
118. Mwasilu, F.; Justo, J.J.; Kim, E.K.; Do, T.D.; Jung, J.W. Electric vehicles and smart grid interaction: A review on vehicle to grid and
renewable energy sources integration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 501–516. [CrossRef]
119. Jiang, A.; Yuan, H.; Li, D.; Tian, J. Key technologies of ubiquitous power Internet of Things-aided smart grid. J. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 2019, 11, 062702. [CrossRef]
120. Reka, S.S.; Dragicevic, T. Future effectual role of energy delivery: A comprehensive review of Internet of Things and smart grid.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 90–108. [CrossRef]
121. Hui, H.; Ding, Y.; Shi, Q.; Li, F.; Song, Y.; Yan, J. 5G network-based Internet of Things for demand response in smart grid: A
survey on application potential. Appl. Energy 2020, 257, 113972. [CrossRef]
122. Sakhnini, J.; Karimipour, H.; Dehghantanha, A.; Parizi, R.M.; Srivastava, G. Security aspects of Internet of Things aided smart
grids: A bibliometric survey. Internet Things 2021, 14, 100111. [CrossRef]
123. Pan, J.; Jain, R.; Paul, S.; Vu, T.; Saifullah, A.; Sha, M. An internet of things framework for smart energy in buildings: designs,
prototype, and experiments. IEEE Internet Things J. 2015, 2, 527–537. [CrossRef]
124. Akhtaruzzaman, M.; Hasan, M.K.; Kabir, S.R.; Abdullah, S.N.H.S.; Sadeq, M.J.; Hossain, E. HSIC bottleneck based distributed
deep learning model for load forecasting in smart grid with a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 222977–223008.
[CrossRef]
125. Chadoulos, S.; Koutsopoulos, I.; Polyzos, G.C. Mobile apps meet the smart energy grid: A survey on consumer engagement and
machine learning applications. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 219632–219655. [CrossRef]
126. Su, Z.; Wang, Y.; Luan, T.H.; Zhang, N.; Li, F.; Chen, T.; Cao, H. Secure and Efficient Federated Learning for Smart Grid With
Edge-Cloud Collaboration. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 18, 1333–1344. [CrossRef]
127. Gai, K.; Wu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Xu, L.; Zhang, Y. Permissioned blockchain and edge computing empowered privacy-preserving smart
grid networks. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 7992–8004. [CrossRef]
128. Huang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Wang, F.; Fan, X.; Liu, J.; Leung, V.C. An edge computing framework for real-time monitoring in smart grid.
In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Internet (ICII), Seattle, WA, USA, 21–23 October 2018;
pp. 99–108.
129. Lu, W.; Ren, Z.; Xu, J.; Chen, S. Edge blockchain assisted lightweight privacy-preserving data aggregation for smart grid. IEEE
Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2021, 18, 1246–1259. [CrossRef]
130. Zhou, H.; Zhang, Z.; Li, D.; Su, Z. Joint Optimization of Computing Offloading and Service Caching in Edge Computing-based
Smart Grid. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2022, 2022, 1–11 . [CrossRef]
131. Aranda, J.A.S.; dos Santos Costa, R.; de Vargas, V.W.; da Silva Pereira, P.R.; Barbosa, J.L.V.; Vianna, M.P. Context-aware Edge
Computing and Internet of Things in Smart Grids: A systematic mapping study. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2022, 99, 107826. [CrossRef]
132. Wang, Z.; Jiang, D.; Wang, F.; Lv, Z.; Nowak, R. A polymorphic heterogeneous security architecture for edge-enabled smart grids.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102661. [CrossRef]
133. Fan, J.; du Toit, W.; Backscheider, P. Distribution substation automation in smart grid. Prot. Control. J. 2009, 9, 65–68 .
134. Gungor, V.C.; Sahin, D.; Kocak, T.; Ergut, S.; Buccella, C.; Cecati, C.; Hancke, G.P. A survey on smart grid potential applications
and communication requirements. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2012, 9, 28–42. [CrossRef]
135. Peng, N.; Liu, X.; Liang, R.; Tang, Z.; Ren, X.; Hu, Y.; Li, G. Edge Computing Based Fault Sensing of the Distribution Cables Based
on Time-domain Analysis of Grounding Line Current Signals. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2022, 2022, 1–13 . [CrossRef]
136. Du, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; He, G.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y. A new type of substation real-time detection system based on edge
computing and RAFT consensus algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2021 6th Asia Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering
(ACPEE), Chongqing, China, 8–11 April 2021; pp. 451–455.
137. Huo, W.; Liu, F.; Wang, L.; Jin, Y.; Wang, L. Research on distributed power distribution fault detection based on edge computing.
IEEE Access 2019, 8, 24643–24652. [CrossRef]
138. Cen, B.; Hu, C.; Cai, Z.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Su, Z. A configuration method of computing resources for microservice-based
edge computing apparatus in smart distribution transformer area. Int. J. Electr. Powe Energy Syst. 2022, 138, 107935. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 47 of 50

139. Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Cai, Y.; Dong, S.; Xu, C.; Fang, R. A Multilevel Edge Computing Architecture and Edge Generation Method of
Distribution Networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Virtual Event, 3–6
August 2020; pp. 1–5.
140. Shakeri, M.; Shayestegan, M.; Abunima, H.; Reza, S.S.; Akhtaruzzaman, M.; Alamoud, A.; Sopian, K.; Amin, N. An intelligent
system architecture in home energy management systems (HEMS) for efficient demand response in smart grid. Energy Build.
2017, 138, 154–164. [CrossRef]
141. Bouhafs, F.; Mackay, M.; Merabti, M. Links to the future: Communication requirements and challenges in the smart grid. IEEE
Power Energy Mag. 2011, 10, 24–32. [CrossRef]
142. Saez-de Ibarra, A.; Martinez-Laserna, E.; Koch-Ciobotaru, C.; Rodriguez, P.; Stroe, D.I.; Swierczynski, M. Second life battery
energy storage system for residential demand response service. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Technology (ICIT), Seville, Spain, 17–19 March 2015; pp. 2941–2948.
143. Elkind, E. Reuse and Repower: How to Save Money and Clean the Grid with Second-Life Electric Vehicle Batteries; UC Berkeley, Berkeley
Law; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–31 .
144. Casals, L.C.; Barbero, M.; Corchero, C. Reused second life batteries for aggregated demand response services. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
212, 99–108. [CrossRef]
145. Alcaraz, C.; Lopez, J. WASAM: A dynamic wide-area situational awareness model for critical domains in Smart Grids. Future
Gener. Comput. Syst. 2014, 30, 146–154. [CrossRef]
146. Law, Y.W.; Palaniswami, M.; Kounga, G.; Lo, A. WAKE: Key management scheme for wide-area measurement systems in smart
grid. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2013, 51, 34–41. [CrossRef]
147. Basu, C.; Agrawal, A.; Hazra, J.; Kumar, A.; Seetharam, D.P.; Béland, J.; Guillon, S.; Kamwa, I.; Lafond, C. Understanding events
for wide-area situational awareness. In Proceedings of the ISGT 2014, Washington, DC, USA 19–22 February 2014; pp. 1–5.
148. Bahrami, S.; Sheikhi, A. From demand response in smart grid toward integrated demand response in smart energy hub. IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid 2015, 7, 650–658. [CrossRef]
149. Rastegar, M.; Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M. Outage management in residential demand response programs. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014,
6, 1453–1462. [CrossRef]
150. He, Y.; Jenkins, N.; Wu, J. Smart metering for outage management of electric power distribution networks. Energy Procedia 2016,
103, 159–164. [CrossRef]
151. Jiang, Y.; Liu, C.C.; Diedesch, M.; Lee, E.; Srivastava, A.K. Outage management of distribution systems incorporating information
from smart meters. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 31, 4144–4154. [CrossRef]
152. Raju, L.; Morais, A.A.; Rathnakumar, R.; Ponnivalavan, S.; Thavam, L. Micro-grid grid outage management using multi-agent
systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Second International Conference on Recent Trends and Challenges in Computational Models
(ICRTCCM), Tindivanam, India, 3–4 February 2017; pp. 363–368.
153. Kong, P.Y.; Karagiannidis, G.K. Charging schemes for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in smart grid: A survey. IEEE Access 2016,
4, 6846–6875. [CrossRef]
154. Debnath, U.K.; Ahmad, I.; Habibi, D. Gridable vehicles and second life batteries for generation side asset management in the
Smart Grid. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 82, 114–123. [CrossRef]
155. Gomez-Quiles, C.; Asencio-Cortes, G.; Gastalver-Rubio, A.; Martinez-Alvarez, F.; Troncoso, A.; Manresa, J.; Riquelme, J.C.;
Riquelme-Santos, J.M. A novel ensemble method for electric vehicle power consumption forecasting: Application to the Spanish
system. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 120840–120856. [CrossRef]
156. Lopes, J.A.P.; Soares, F.J.; Almeida, P.M.R. Integration of electric vehicles in the electric power system. Proc. IEEE 2010, 99, 168–183.
[CrossRef]
157. Martínez-Lao, J.; Montoya, F.G.; Montoya, M.G.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Electric vehicles in Spain: An overview of charging
systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 970–983. [CrossRef]
158. Chen, Y.; Oudalov, A.; Wang, J. Integration of electric vehicle charging system into distribution network. In Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Power Electronics-ECCE Asia, Jeju, Korea, 30 May–3 June 2011; pp. 593–598.
159. Eltoumi, F.M.; Becherif, M.; Djerdir, A.; Ramadan, H.S. The key issues of electric vehicle charging via hybrid power sources:
Techno-economic viability, analysis, and recommendations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110534. [CrossRef]
160. Ashfaq, M.; Butt, O.; Selvaraj, J.; Rahim, N. Assessment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and its impact on the electric
grid: A review. Int. J. Green Energy 2021, 18, 657–686. [CrossRef]
161. Lee, Z.J.; Chang, D.; Jin, C.; Lee, G.S.; Lee, R.; Lee, T.; Low, S.H. Large-scale adaptive electric vehicle charging. In Proceed-
ings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids
(SmartGridComm), Aalborg, Denmark, 29–31 October 2018; pp. 1–7.
162. Hutchinson, S.; Baran, M.; Lukic, S. Power supply for an electric vehicle charging system for a large parking deck. In Proceedings
of the 2009 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Houston, TX, USA, 4–8 October 2009; pp. 1–4.
163. Jung, C.M.; Ray, P.; Salkuti, S.R. Asset management and maintenance: A smart grid perspective. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng.
(2088-8708) 2019, 9, 3391–3398 . [CrossRef]
164. Ahmed, S.; Lee, Y.D.; Hyun, S.H.; Koo, I. A cognitive radio-based energy-efficient system for power transmission line monitoring
in smart grids. J. Sens. 2017, 2017, 3862375. [CrossRef]
165. Hanai, M.; Kojima, H.; Hayakawa, N.; Shinoda, K.; Okubo, H. Integration of asset management and smart grid with intelligent
grid management system. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2013, 20, 2195–2202. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 48 of 50

166. Teoh, Y.K.; Gill, S.S.; Parlikad, A.K. IoT and fog computing based predictive maintenance model for effective asset management
in industry 4.0 using machine learning. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021, 2021, 1–8 . [CrossRef]
167. Ma, H.; Saha, T.K.; Ekanayake, C.; Martin, D. Smart transformer for smart grid—intelligent framework and techniques for power
transformer asset management. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2015, 6, 1026–1034. [CrossRef]
168. Cheng, M.; Zeng, Y.; Niu, R.; Chen, Y. Study on the model of advanced asset management in smart grid. In Proceedings of the
2011 4th International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT), Weihai,
China, 6–9 July 2011; pp. 781–785.
169. Trajano, A.F.; de Sousa, A.A.M.; Rodrigues, E.B.; de Souza, J.N.; de Castro Callado, A.; Coutinho, E.F. Leveraging mobile
edge computing on smart grids using LTE cellular networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Symposium on Computers and
Communications (ISCC), Barcelona, Spain, 29 June–3 July 2019; pp. 1–7.
170. Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Lu, S.; Liu, L.; Shi, W.; et al. OpenEI: An open framework for edge intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2019
IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Dallas, TX, USA, 7–10 July 2019; pp. 1840–1851.
171. Moghaddam, M.; Cadavid, M.N.; Kenley, C.R.; Deshmukh, A.V. Reference architectures for smart manufacturing: A critical
review. J. Manuf. Syst. 2018, 49, 215–225. [CrossRef]
172. Peng, N.; Liang, R.; Wang, G.; Sun, P.; Chen, C.; Hou, T. Edge Computing-Based Fault Location in Distribution Networks by
Using Asynchronous Transient Amplitudes at Limited Nodes. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2020, 12, 574–588. [CrossRef]
173. Sufyan, F.; Banerjee, A. Computation offloading for distributed mobile edge computing network: A multiobjective approach.
IEEE Access 2020, 8, 149915–149930. [CrossRef]
174. Xi, L.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y. Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Service-Oriented Resource Allocation
in Smart Grids. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 77637–77648. [CrossRef]
175. Hou, W.; Jiang, Y.; Lei, W.; Xu, A.; Wen, H.; Chen, S. A P2P network based edge computing smart grid model for efficient
resources coordination. Peer-Peer Netw. Appl. 2020, 13, 1026–1037. [CrossRef]
176. Patil, P.; Hakiri, A.; Gokhale, A. Cyber foraging and offloading framework for internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2016
IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–14 June 2016; Volume 1,
pp. 359–368.
177. Li, B.; Pei, Y.; Wu, H.; Shen, B. Heuristics to allocate high-performance cloudlets for computation offloading in mobile ad hoc
clouds. J. Supercomput. 2015, 71, 3009–3036. [CrossRef]
178. Wolski, R.; Gurun, S.; Krintz, C.; Nurmi, D. Using bandwidth data to make computation offloading decisions. In Proceedings of
the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, Miami, FL, USA , 14–18 April 2008; pp. 1–8.
179. Akherfi, K.; Gerndt, M.; Harroud, H. Mobile cloud computing for computation offloading: Issues and challenges. Appl. Comput.
Inform. 2018, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef]
180. Dinh, T.Q.; La, Q.D.; Quek, T.Q.; Shin, H. Learning for computation offloading in mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. Commun.
2018, 66, 6353–6367. [CrossRef]
181. Jiang, C.; Cheng, X.; Gao, H.; Zhou, X.; Wan, J. Toward computation offloading in edge computing: A survey. IEEE Access 2019,
7, 131543–131558. [CrossRef]
182. Lin, L.; Liao, X.; Jin, H.; Li, P. Computation offloading toward edge computing. Proc. IEEE 2019, 107, 1584–1607. [CrossRef]
183. Noble, B.D.; Satyanarayanan, M.; Narayanan, D.; Tilton, J.E.; Flinn, J.; Walker, K.R. Agile application-aware adaptation for
mobility. ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 1997, 31, 276–287. [CrossRef]
184. Guo, H.; Liu, J.; Zhang, J.; Sun, W.; Kato, N. Mobile-edge computation offloading for ultradense IoT networks. IEEE Internet
Things J. 2018, 5, 4977–4988. [CrossRef]
185. Yu, S.; Langar, R.; Fu, X.; Wang, L.; Han, Z. Computation offloading with data caching enhancement for mobile edge computing.
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2018, 67, 11098–11112. [CrossRef]
186. Dong, L.; Satpute, M.N.; Shan, J.; Liu, B.; Yu, Y.; Yan, T. Computation offloading for mobile-edge computing with multi-user. In
Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Dallas, TX, USA, 7–10
July 2019; pp. 841–850.
187. Khayyat, M.; Elgendy, I.A.; Muthanna, A.; Alshahrani, A.S.; Alharbi, S.; Koucheryavy, A. Advanced deep learning-based
computational offloading for multilevel vehicular edge-cloud computing networks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 137052–137062.
[CrossRef]
188. Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Gan, X.; Jin, H.; Fu, L.; Wang, X. Learning-aided computation offloading for trusted collaborative mobile edge
computing. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2019, 19, 2833–2849. [CrossRef]
189. Verbelen, T.; Stevens, T.; De Turck, F.; Dhoedt, B. Graph partitioning algorithms for optimizing software deployment in mobile
cloud computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2013, 29, 451–459. [CrossRef]
190. Zhao, T.; Zhou, S.; Guo, X.; Niu, Z. Tasks scheduling and resource allocation in heterogeneous cloud for delay-bounded mobile
edge computing. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Paris, France, 21–25 May
2017; pp. 1–7.
191. Sardellitti, S.; Scutari, G.; Barbarossa, S. Joint optimization of radio and computational resources for multicell mobile-edge
computing. IEEE Trans. Signal Inf. Process. Netw. 2015, 1, 89–103. [CrossRef]
192. Chen, X.; Shi, Q.; Yang, L.; Xu, J. ThriftyEdge: Resource-efficient edge computing for intelligent IoT applications. IEEE Netw.
2018, 32, 61–65. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 49 of 50

193. Abebe, E.; Ryan, C. Adaptive application offloading using distributed abstract class graphs in mobile environments. J. Syst. Softw.
2012, 85, 2755–2769. [CrossRef]
194. Kosta, S.; Aucinas, A.; Hui, P.; Mortier, R.; Zhang, X. Thinkair: Dynamic resource allocation and parallel execution in the cloud for
mobile code offloading. In Proceedings of the 2012 Proceedings IEEE Infocom, Orlando, FL, USA, 25–30 March 2012; pp. 945–953.
195. Chen, X. Decentralized computation offloading game for mobile cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2014,
26, 974–983. [CrossRef]
196. Chen, L.; Zhou, S.; Xu, J. Computation peer offloading for energy-constrained mobile edge computing in small-cell networks.
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2018, 26, 1619–1632. [CrossRef]
197. Li, S.; Tao, Y.; Qin, X.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, P. Energy-aware mobile edge computation offloading for IoT over heterogenous
networks. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 13092–13105. [CrossRef]
198. Elgendy, I.A.; Zhang, W.Z.; Zeng, Y.; He, H.; Tian, Y.C.; Yang, Y. Efficient and secure multi-user multi-task computation offloading
for mobile-edge computing in mobile IoT networks. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2020, 17, 2410–2422. [CrossRef]
199. Huang, P.Q.; Wang, Y.; Wang, K.; Liu, Z.Z. A bilevel optimization approach for joint offloading decision and resource allocation
in cooperative mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2019, 50, 4228–4241. [CrossRef]
200. Chen, X.; Jiao, L.; Li, W.; Fu, X. Efficient multi-user computation offloading for mobile-edge cloud computing. IEEE/ACM Trans.
Netw. 2015, 24, 2795–2808. [CrossRef]
201. Humayed, A.; Lin, J.; Li, F.; Luo, B. Cyber-physical systems security: A survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 1802–1831.
[CrossRef]
202. Singh, J.; Bello, Y.; Hussein, A.R.; Erbad, A.; Mohamed, A. Hierarchical security paradigm for iot multiaccess edge computing.
IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 5794–5805. [CrossRef]
203. Gligor, V.D. A note on denial-of-service in operating systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 1984, SE-10, 320–324. [CrossRef]
204. Yuan, X.; Li, C.; Li, X. DeepDefense: Identifying DDoS attack via deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP), Hong Kong, China, 29–31 May 2017; pp. 1–8.
205. Nooribakhsh, M.; Mollamotalebi, M. A review on statistical approaches for anomaly detection in DDoS attacks. Inf. Secur. J. Glob.
Perspect. 2020, 29, 118–133. [CrossRef]
206. Bhat, S.A.; Sofi, I.B.; Chi, C.Y. edge computing and its convergence with blockchain in 5G and beyond: security, challenges, and
opportunities. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 205340–205373. [CrossRef]
207. Li, X.; Chen, T.; Cheng, Q.; Ma, S.; Ma, J. Smart applications in edge computing: Overview on authentication and data security.
IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 4063–4080. [CrossRef]
208. Li, H.; Wu, J.; Xu, H.; Li, G.; Guizani, M. Explainable Intelligence-Driven Defense Mechanism against Advanced Persistent
Threats: A Joint Edge Game and AI Approach. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2021, 19, 757–775. [CrossRef]
209. Nayak, G.N.; Samaddar, S.G. Different flavours of man-in-the-middle attack, consequences and feasible solutions. In Proceedings
of the 2010 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Chengdu, China, 9–11 July 2010;
Volume 5, pp. 491–495.
210. Rahim, R. Man-in-the-middle-attack prevention using interlock protocol method. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci 2017, 12, 6483–6487.
211. Mohapatra, H.; Rath, S.; Panda, S.; Kumar, R. Handling of man-in-the-middle attack in wsn through intrusion detection system.
Int. J. 2020, 8, 1503–1510. [CrossRef]
212. Ranaweera, P.; Jurcut, A.D.; Liyanage, M. Survey on multi-access edge computing security and privacy. IEEE Commun. Surv.
Tutor. 2021, 23, 1078–1124. [CrossRef]
213. Chen, D.; Wawrzynski, P.; Lv, Z. Cyber security in smart cities: A review of deep learning-based applications and case studies.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 66, 102655. [CrossRef]
214. Xiao, Y.; Jia, Y.; Liu, C.; Cheng, X.; Yu, J.; Lv, W. Edge computing security: State of the art and challenges. Proc. IEEE 2019,
107, 1608–1631. [CrossRef]
215. Chaudhry, S.A.; Alhakami, H.; Baz, A.; Al-Turjman, F. Securing demand response management: A certificate-based access control
in smart grid edge computing infrastructure. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 101235–101243. [CrossRef]
216. Nyamtiga, B.W.; Sicato, J.C.S.; Rathore, S.; Sung, Y.; Park, J.H. Blockchain-based secure storage management with edge computing
for IoT. Electronics 2019, 8, 828. [CrossRef]
217. Shaukat, K.; Luo, S.; Varadharajan, V.; Hameed, I.A.; Chen, S.; Liu, D.; Li, J. Performance comparison and current challenges of
using machine learning techniques in cybersecurity. Energies 2020, 13, 2509. [CrossRef]
218. Javed, A.R.; Usman, M.; Rehman, S.U.; Khan, M.U.; Haghighi, M.S. Anomaly detection in automated vehicles using multistage
attention-based convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 22, 4291–4300. [CrossRef]
219. Marir, N.; Wang, H.; Feng, G.; Li, B.; Jia, M. Distributed abnormal behavior detection approach based on deep belief network and
ensemble SVM using spark. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 59657–59671. [CrossRef]
220. Xin, Y.; Kong, L.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhu, H.; Gao, M.; Hou, H.; Wang, C. Machine learning and deep learning methods for
cybersecurity. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 35365–35381. [CrossRef]
221. Sheatsley, R.; Durbin, M.; Lintereur, A.; Mcdaniel, P. Improving Radioactive Material Localization by Leveraging Cyber-Security
Model Optimizations. IEEE Sens. J. 2021, 21, 9994–10006. [CrossRef]
222. Larriva-Novo, X.; Vega-Barbas, M.; Villagrá, V.A.; Rivera, D.; Álvarez-Campana, M.; Berrocal, J. Efficient distributed preprocessing
model for machine learning-based anomaly detection over large-scale cybersecurity datasets. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3430. [CrossRef]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2022, 11, 47 50 of 50

223. Podder, P.; Bharati, S.; Mondal, M.; Paul, P.K.; Kose, U. Artificial neural network for cybersecurity: A comprehensive review.
arXiv 2021, arXiv:2107.01185.
224. Mathai, K.J.; et al. Performance comparison of intrusion detection system between deep belief network (DBN) algorithm and
state preserving extreme learning machine (SPELM) algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on
Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Coimbatore, India, 20–22 February 2019; pp. 1–7.
225. Huda, S.; Yearwood, J.; Hassan, M.M.; Almogren, A. Securing the operations in SCADA-IoT platform based industrial control
system using ensemble of deep belief networks. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 71, 66–77. [CrossRef]
226. Nguyen, G.N.; Le Viet, N.H.; Elhoseny, M.; Shankar, K.; Gupta, B.; Abd El-Latif, A.A. Secure blockchain enabled Cyber–physical
systems in healthcare using deep belief network with ResNet model. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2021, 153, 150–160. [CrossRef]
227. Habibi, M.R.; Baghaee, H.R.; Dragičević, T.; Blaabjerg, F. Detection of false data injection cyber-attacks in DC microgrids based on
recurrent neural networks. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2020, 9, 5294–5310. [CrossRef]
228. Lin, T.N.; Giles, C.L.; Horne, B.G.; Kung, S.Y. A delay damage model selection algorithm for NARX neural networks. IEEE Trans.
Signal Process. 1997, 45, 2719–2730.
229. Ullah, I.; Mahmoud, Q.H. Design and development of a deep learning-based model for anomaly detection in IoT networks. IEEE
Access 2021, 9, 103906–103926. [CrossRef]
230. Kravchik, M.; Shabtai, A. Detecting cyber attacks in industrial control systems using convolutional neural networks. In
Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems Security and PrivaCy, Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–19 October 2018;
pp. 72–83.
231. Susilo, B.; Sari, R.F. Intrusion detection in IoT networks using deep learning algorithm. Information 2020, 11, 279. [CrossRef]
232. McLaughlin, N.; Martinez del Rincon, J.; Kang, B.; Yerima, S.; Miller, P.; Sezer, S.; Safaei, Y.; Trickel, E.; Zhao, Z.; Doupé, A.; et al.
Deep android malware detection. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Seventh ACM on Conference on Data and Application
Security and Privacy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 22–24 March 2017; pp. 301–308.
233. Li, Y.; Xu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Hou, H.; Zheng, Y.; Xin, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Cui, L. Robust detection for network intrusion of industrial IoT based
on multi-CNN fusion. Measurement 2020, 154, 107450. [CrossRef]
234. Gimenez-Aguilar, M.; de Fuentes, J.M.; Gonzalez-Manzano, L.; Arroyo, D. Achieving cybersecurity in blockchain-based systems:
A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2021, 124, 91–118. [CrossRef]
235. Razaque, A.; Al Ajlan, A.; Melaoune, N.; Alotaibi, M.; Alotaibi, B.; Dias, I.; Oad, A.; Hariri, S.; Zhao, C. Avoidance of cybersecurity
threats with the deployment of a web-based blockchain-enabled cybersecurity awareness system. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7880.
[CrossRef]
236. Zhang, L.; Zou, Y.; Wang, W.; Jin, Z.; Su, Y.; Chen, H. Resource allocation and trust computing for blockchain-enabled edge
computing system. Comput. Secur. 2021, 105, 102249. [CrossRef]
237. Wang, J.; Wu, L.; Choo, K.K.R.; He, D. Blockchain-based anonymous authentication with key management for smart grid edge
computing infrastructure. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 16, 1984–1992. [CrossRef]
238. Zhao, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Meixner, C.C.; Tornatore, M.; Zhang, J. Edge computing and networking: A survey on infrastructures
and applications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 101213–101230. [CrossRef]
239. Xue, M.; Yuan, C.; Wu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, W. Machine learning security: Threats, countermeasures, and evaluations. IEEE Access
2020, 8, 74720–74742. [CrossRef]