international journal of critical infrastructure protection 44 (2024) 100646

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcip

Machine learning applications in the resilience of interdependent critical

infrastructure systems—A systematic literature review
Basem A. Alkhaleel
Department of Industrial Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The resilience of interdependent critical infrastructure systems (ICISs) is critical for the functioning of
Machine learning society and the economy. ICISs such as power grids and telecommunication networks are complex systems
Resilience characterized by a wide range of interconnections, and disruptions to such systems can cause significant
Interdependent networks
socioeconomic losses. This vital role requires the adaptation of new tools and technologies to improve the
Critical infrastructure
modeling of such complex systems and achieve the highest levels of resilience. One of the trending tools in
Systematic review
many research fields to model complex systems is machine learning (ML). In this article, a systematic review
of the literature on ML applications in ICISs resilience is conducted, considering the protocol of Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), to address the lack of knowledge and
scattered research articles on the topic. The main objective of this systematic review is to determine the state
of the art of ML applications in the area of ICISs resilience engineering by exploring the current literature. The
results found were summarized and some of the future opportunities for ML in ICISs resilience applications were
outlined to encourage resilience engineering communities to adapt and use ML for various ICISs applications
and to utilize its potential.

1. Introduction requiring extensive capital investments. The use of machine learning

1.1. Background
Machine learning (ML) is a rapidly growing field of machine in-
telligence that enables computers to learn from data without being
explicitly programmed. ML techniques such as deep learning have been
shown to be effective in modeling complex systems and uncovering
hidden patterns that humans often ignore. Murphy [1] defines machine
learning as ‘‘a set of methods that can automatically detect patterns in
data, and then use the uncovered patterns to predict future data, or to
perform other types of decision making under uncertainty’’. In recent
years, machine learning has flourished in a wide range of areas, from
healthcare [2] to education [3], transportation [4], e-commerce [5],
quality and reliability engineering [6], and many others. The field
of resilience engineering of critical infrastructure systems (CISs) is
expected to follow this trend. Recent natural disasters have highlighted
the importance of resilient infrastructure in modern society [7,8]. Cities
and nations around the world are now investing heavily in advanced
infrastructure systems, such as smart cities, smart grids, and smart
buildings, to improve their resilience and increase their sustainabil-
ity. However, these high-tech systems are expensive to develop and
maintain, and there is a pressing need for innovative solutions that can
improve the resilience of these complex infrastructure systems without
methods can help meet this need. There are several applications of
machine learning in the field of critical infrastructure resilience engi-
neering that can improve the resilience of the infrastructure of both
new and existing infrastructure systems. Some of the key benefits of
using machine learning techniques to enhance resilience include im-
proved decision-making capabilities and reduced socioeconomic losses
from disruptions.
Critical infrastructures (CIs) or critical infrastructure networks
(CINs) are those systems that underlie the delivery of vital public ser-
vices, whether they are in the private or public sector. Examples include
transportation systems, power grids, telecommunication networks, and
hospitals. Any disruption to these systems can have significant impli-
cations for the economy and society. Due to the crucial nature of these
infrastructure systems, governments around the world have established
regulatory frameworks designed to ensure that they can remain at
acceptable levels of service even during periods of disruption [9,10].
These frameworks include legislation that governs the design of critical
systems and the need to maintain sufficient redundancy to allow for
repairs and maintenance during periods of system failure [9]. Failure
to maintain these resilience levels can lead to failures in the provision
of services that could have a significant impact on the economy and,

E-mail address: balkhaleel@ksu.edu.sa.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2023.100646
Received 23 May 2023; Received in revised form 17 October 2023; Accepted 3 December 2023
Available online 4 December 2023
1874-5482/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B.A. Alkhaleel
in some cases, on the health and safety of the public [11]. Despite the
considerable efforts made by governments and industry to improve the
resilience of critical infrastructures, disruptions continue to occur on
a regular basis. This is due to a number of factors, including natural
disasters, extreme weather events, cyber attacks, terrorism, and other
invincible natural or man-made phenomena.
The vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures is a
complex challenge that needs to be addressed to improve the resilience
of such systems. As noted by Zio [11], ‘‘Many critical infrastructures
are complex systems, where human and technical interactions are often
intricately interwoven’’. This complexity, combined with the dynamic
nature of the environment, can lead to significant gaps in understanding
the vulnerabilities and risks posed by such infrastructures. Additionally,
due to the interdependent nature of many critical infrastructures, a
single failure can have cascading effects across multiple systems and
sectors. As such, effective vulnerability and risk analysis requires an
integrated approach that takes into account the interactions between
different components and systems. Such interactions, or interdependen-
cies, include functional, spatial, cyber, social, and logical interdepen-
dencies, and other forms of interdependency that could affect proactive
resilience (e.g., security) and reactive resilience (e.g., restoration and
recovery planning) [12–14]. Although this complex form of infrastruc-
ture interdependence was recognized two decades ago [15], related
research on interdependent networks began very recently as part of the
application of resilience engineering [16–18].
The modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastruc-
ture systems (ICISs) is a relatively new and developing field of re-
search. Ouyang [19] found that there are many challenges and opportu-
nities associated with this field in a review of the literature. One of the
most significant challenges is the complexity of the interdependencies
between ICISs components. Amin [15] highlights the importance of
secure and resilient interdependent infrastructures as these systems are
characterized by connected and interdependent networks where, when
a single network is compromised, the entire system is at risk. More-
over, Amin [15] argues that understanding how these interdependent
systems interact and function together is key to ensuring their secure
and resilient nature. In addition, Ouyang [19] found that the lack of
data, the diversity of system components, and the varying levels of
uncertainty associated with interdependent systems contribute to the
complexity of ICISs modeling and simulation for resilience applications.
In fact, it is notable that the development of new tools, strategies, and
methodologies (e.g., machine learning) is needed to effectively model,
simulate, and improve the resilience of ICISs [15,19]. It is essential to
develop more effective and efficient ways of collecting and analyzing
data related to ICISs components, and future research should focus on
the challenges and opportunities associated with this field.
1.2. CIs interdependencies classification
Infrastructure networks are not isolated from each other, but rather
depend on each other in different ways for their proper function-
ing [16]. Therefore, they exhibit interdependence, where a pair of
infrastructure networks is said to be interdependent if a bidirectional
relationship exists between them through which the state of each infras-
tructure depends on the state of the other [12,20]. Interdependencies
play a critical role in the resilience of CIs by not only contributing
to the widespread propagation of failure (e.g. cascading failures), but
also facilitating or complicating the entire recovery process [21]. The
need to describe the relationships among infrastructure systems and the
corresponding propagation of system disruptions led to the definition
of several classifications of the nature of infrastructure interdependen-
cies [12,22–25]. However, the classification of Rinaldi et al. [12] can
be described as a ‘‘self-contained classification’’ that can capture the
different nature of interdependencies [16,19].
The interdependencies between infrastructure networks were clas-
sified by Rinaldi et al. [12] into four categories:
2
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
Fig. 1. Examples of electric power infrastructure dependencies [16].
• Physical interdependency: an output from an infrastructure network
is an input to another and vice versa.
• Cyber interdependency: if an infrastructure network depends on
information transmitted through an information infrastructure.
• Geographical interdependency: if two infrastructure networks are
affected by the same local disruptive event.
• Logical interdependency: all other types of interdependencies
(e.g., social or legal link between two CIs).
Fig. 1 illustrates several forms of interdependence between electrical
networks and other infrastructure networks. In the presented systematic
review, all types of interdependencies were considered in the selec-
tion process of publications, except for pure cyber interdependency,
which generally falls under the body of knowledge of cyber security
of information technology [26].
1.3. Overview and research contribution
The various challenges related to the field of resilience of inter-
dependent critical infrastructures discussed earlier require effective
approaches to overcome. ML is a suitable approach to address these
challenges, as ML is capable of providing new insights and opportu-
nities to ease such difficulties in the resilience engineering of ICISs
research field. Moreover, ML is also capable of improving the modeling
and decision-making processes of ICISs resilience by exploring patterns
of data beyond the capabilities of conventional analytical tools. In
this article, a systematic review of the literature is chosen to address
the shortage of knowledge and scattered research articles on the ap-
plications of ML in the resilience of ICISs. Systematic reviews of the
literature are highly approved academic scoping methods, as they are
impartial and concise with the adherence to a specific protocol [27,28].
Furthermore, systematic reviews are bias-free tools to show the state
of the art in research fields versus a subjective (potentially biased)
literature summary in a survey context [28].
The main objective of this systematic review is to determine the
state of the art of ML applications in the area of ICISs resilience
engineering by exploring the current literature in a systematic approach
considering the checklist of the Preferred Reporting Items for System-
atic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [29]. Other objectives for
conducting this systematic review can be summarized below:
• Identifying and categorizing the different machine learning tech-
niques and algorithms used in the context of interdependent
critical infrastructure systems’ resilience.
B.A. Alkhaleel
• Reviewing the literature to understand the specific critical infras-
tructure systems that have been the focus of machine learning
applications for resilience enhancement.
• Identifying the limitations and gaps in existing research on ma-
chine learning applications for resilience in interdependent criti-
cal infrastructure systems, including areas where further research
is needed.
• Identifying opportunities for future research and development
in machine learning applications to improve the resilience of
interdependent critical infrastructure systems.
To achieve the objectives and define the scope of research, the
following research questions will be investigated:
(1) What are the ML applications explored in ICISs resilience?
(2) What are the key ML techniques and algorithms used in the
context of ICISs resilience?
(3) What types of critical infrastructure systems have been the focus
of machine learning applications to enhance resilience?
(4) What are the limitations and gaps in the existing research on
machine learning applications for the resilience of ICISs?
(5) What are the practical implications and real-world applications
of ML in improving the resilience of interdependent critical
infrastructure systems?
(6) What are the possible future opportunities in the field?
The main contributions of this article are three-fold. (1) Synthesize
and outline current ML applications in the resilience engineering of
ICISs field; (2) outline some of the future opportunities for ML in
ICISs resilience applications; and (3) encourage resilience engineering
communities to adapt and use ML for various ICISs applications and
utilize its potential.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2
provides an overview of ML and its main categories and classifications
for readers unfamiliar with ML. Section 3 presents the systematic
review methodology. Section 4 presents the results of the systematic
review, discusses and outlines the applications of ML in the resilience
of ICISs field, compares the objectives of reviewed applications, and
suggests possible future opportunities. Finally, concluding remarks are
provided in Section 5.
2. Machine learning: a brief summary
In this section, a summary of machine learning categories and
algorithms is presented for readers unfamiliar with ML. As mentioned
above, machine learning is a set of methods and algorithms that can
detect patterns in data and then use this information to predict future
data or improve the decision-making process [1]; in other words, ML is
a subset of artificial intelligence that deals with building and studying
algorithms that can learn from data. Such algorithms are used to
serve multiple purposes, including predicting future events, recognizing
patterns, classifying similar items or conditions, and decision-making
under uncertainty. Of course, ML is a broad field that includes different
types of algorithms; however, ML and its algorithms can be segmented
into four main categories; (i) supervised learning (SL); (ii) unsuper-
vised learning (USL); (iii) semi-supervised learning (SSL) (combining
attributes from the first two categories); and (iv) reinforcement learning
(RL) [30]. Fig. 2 shows these categories as well as some common
subcategories and known algorithms in the literature of ML. The fol-
lowing explains the essential machine learning data modeling and then
summarizes these categories briefly.
A key element in science and engineering is the process of generat-
ing and collecting data, which is becoming increasingly important for
all other fields as well [6]. In machine learning, the different categories
are differentiated by the different data collected and fed into the model
and the known and unknown data of the model. In fact, in ML models,
we have what is called a response variable 𝑌𝑖 which is the output of
3
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
interest (referred to as the label or dependent variable) and the inputs
𝑋𝑖 which are called features, covariates, attributes, or predictors [1,6].
The goal here is to estimate the function 𝑓̂ of the real unknown function
𝑓 (𝑿) using the available inputs or features [1,6].
The general ML model can be represented as 𝑌̂ = 𝑓̂(𝑿), where 𝑌̂
is the estimated response variable given the inputs 𝑿. If the input–
{( )}𝑁
output pairs  = 𝒙𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 𝑖=1 , where  is called the training set
and 𝑁 is the number of training examples, are known, then the ML
model falls into the category of supervised learning. When trying to
estimate 𝑓̂ using unlabeled data (that is, only inputs are available
{ }𝑁
without outputs)  = 𝐱𝑖 𝑖=1 , the ML model falls into the category of
unsupervised learning. The lack of output variables is similar to blindly
searching for patterns in a dataset without a guide or supervision of the
learning process [1]. Therefore, unsupervised learning is also known as
knowledge discovery due to the lack of guidance in the data exploration
{( )}𝑁
process [1]. When only partial input–output pairs  = 𝐱𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 𝑖=1 are
labeled, that is, we have some 𝑥𝑖 without a corresponding 𝑦𝑖 , then the
ML model falls into the semi-supervised learning category. Finally, the
fourth category of ML known as reinforcement learning, although it
does not fit directly into the provided framework, tries to learn how to
act or behave when given occasional reward or punishment signals; in
other words, reinforcement learning tries to explore 𝑿 and search for
the optimal 𝑿 ∗ given a desired output 𝑌 [1,6]. More information about
each category is provided in the following subsections.
2.1. Supervised learning
This type of machine learning is performed if accurate targeted
points are extracted from a specific set of inputs [30]. Therefore, based
on this learning system, there are two processes that are needed to run
the model. First, labeling of the data, which is associating known inputs
to outputs as input–output pairs. Second, training of the marked or
labeled datasets to improve the output of the model [30]. Based on that,
supervised learning attempts to estimate a function that maps an input
vector to an output given a dataset of paired observations: 𝑓̂ ∶ 𝑿 →
𝑌 . Generally, supervised learning is done for inferential or prediction
purposes [6]. In the former case, we try to develop an understanding of
the association between the dependent variables and the independent
variable(s). For the latter case, we try to predict responses to new
observed features that are not in the dataset [6]. If the response or the
independent variable(s) are qualitative, the supervised ML falls under
the classification subcategory and if the independent variable(s) are
quantitative, the supervised ML falls under the regression subcategory,
as depicted in Fig. 2.
Classification is probably the most widely used machine learning
form and is used to solve many real-world problems [1]. The goal of
classification is to learn a mapping from inputs 𝑿 to outputs 𝑌 , where
𝑌 ∈ {1, … , 𝐶}, with 𝐶 being the number of classes. In case 𝐶 = 2,
this is called binary classification (where 𝑌 is often assumed to be
binary); however, if 𝐶 > 2, this is called multiclass classification [1].
Furthermore, class labels may not be mutually exclusive (i.e., an input
can be classified in more than one class); if this is the case, this
type of classification is known as multi-label classification [1]. Some
real-world applications of supervised learning classification include
document classification and email spam filtering, image classification,
handwriting recognition, and face detection and recognition [1]. There
are many algorithms that can be used for supervised learning clas-
sification purposes, such as the naïve Bayes classifier [31], decision
trees [32], support vector machines (SVM) [33], random forest [33],
and K-nearest neighbors (KNN) [34].
Regression is similar to classification, except that the response vari-
able is continuous. In other words, regression problems try to estimate
𝑓̂ for a quantitative response variable such as temperature, height, or
salary given some inputs. Examples of real-world applications include
predicting future weather temperature given the currently available
B.A. Alkhaleel
Fig. 2. Machine learning main categories and subcategories with examples of known algorithms that fall under each subcategory.
weather information, predicting future stock market prices given cur-
rent market conditions and other related information, and estimating
the amount of time spent by a user on social media apps given his
current behavior. Several machine learning models and algorithms
are available to perform this type of estimation. Some common algo-
rithms include linear regression [1], neural network regression [35],
support vector regression [36], decision tree regression [37], lasso
regression [38], and ridge regression [39].
2.2. Unsupervised learning
In the unsupervised learning case, only input data 𝑿 𝑖 are given
without an associated output 𝑌𝑖 as mentioned before. Unlike supervised
learning, no desired output is available for each input; hence, this type
of machine learning is not interested in coupling outputs to inputs or
predicting the output variable. Instead, the goal is to explore the dataset
to find ‘‘interesting’’ structure or patterns, which is referred to as ‘‘the
discovery of knowledge’’ in the ML literature [1,6]. For this type of ML,
there are three main subcategories which are clustering, dimensionality
reduction, and association. It should be noted that unsupervised learn-
ing is in principle similar to the human and animal learning process
and is also more widely applicable than supervised learning, as it does
not require human intervention in labeling the data [1].
Unsupervised clustering is the type of machine learning algorithms
used to classify data points into clusters based on their similarities in
the feature space [6]. Note that in supervised classification, the number
of classes is given or known, but in the unsupervised clustering case,
neither the number of classes nor the groups are predefined [1,6].
Therefore, two goals for clustering are needed: to estimate the number
of clusters and to assign data points to each cluster [1]. To identify
similarities between data points, clustering algorithms typically use a
distance metric such as the Euclidean distance to measure similarity.
The algorithm then uses this metric to assign data points into clusters.
Clustering methods are widely used in a wide range of applica-
tions, ranging from image segmentation and object recognition to data
mining. For example, a common real-world application of clustering
is in e-commerce, where users are clustered into groups, according to
their purchasing or web surfing behavior, to target groups through
custom advertising [40]. The most common unsupervised clustering
algorithms are K-means clustering [41], mean-shift clustering [42],
DBSCAN clustering [43], agglomerative hierarchical clustering [44],
and Gaussian mixture clustering [45]. Two comprehensive surveys
covering clustering algorithms can be found in Berkhin [40] and Xu
and Tian [46].
Dimensionality reduction is an unsupervised ML process that re-
duces the number of features or variables in a dataset while preserving
4
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
the ‘‘important’’ information contained in the collected data. In other
words, the dimensionality is reduced by projecting the data into a lower
dimensional subspace (e.g., from the 3D space to the 2D plane) while
capturing the ‘‘essence’’ of the data [1]. The motivation for this method
is that, although the data may appear high-dimensional, only a small
number of degrees of variability could be available, corresponding to
unseen factors known as ‘‘latent factors’’ [1]. Dimensionality reduction
can be helpful for a number of reasons. First, it reduces the complexity
of a dataset and makes it easier to analyze and interpret. Second, it can
reduce the amount of data that must be stored and processed, which
can help to improve the speed and efficiency of ML algorithms. Third,
it can reduce the risk of overfitting, where the model becomes sensitive
to every minor variation in the input and does not generalize well to
unseen data [1].
Dimensionality reduction can be achieved through a variety of tech-
niques, including feature selection and feature extraction approaches.
The first approach involves selecting a subset of features from the
dataset that are most relevant to the current task. The most com-
mon algorithms for feature selection are sequential backward selection
(SBS) [47] and random forest feature importance [48]. The second ap-
proach, however, involves creating new features from existing features
in the dataset. The most common algorithms for feature extraction are
principal component analysis (PCA) [49], random projection [50], and
independent component analysis (ICA) [51]. Dimensionality reduction
approaches are applied in different areas, from signal processing to
natural language processing (NLP) [1].
Association rules mining or association is an unsupervised machine
learning type that is used to identify interesting associations (relation-
ships, dependencies) in large sets of data items [52]. By identifying
such relationships, the extracted associations can provide a source of
information that businesses often use for decision-making. The main
difference between association and clustering is that in the former,
we look for relationships (e.g., number of associated events and de-
pendencies), while in the latter, we look only for similarities. Some
application areas of association rules are market-basket data analysis,
cross-marketing, data preprocessing, and catalog design [52].
Market-basket analysis is one of the most popular applications of
association rules that tries to analyze customer buying patterns by
finding associations between items that customers put into their bas-
kets. For example, it might be found that customers usually buy two
items together (e.g., milk and bread), or that customers often tend to
combine two specific brands for an associated pair of items. These
and other previously unknown rules can be used to maximize prof-
its by designing more successful targeted marketing campaigns [52].
Association rules can be divided in terms of dimensionality into single-
dimensional and multi-dimensional and in terms of association levels
B.A. Alkhaleel
into single-level and multilevel (see Cios et al. [52] for details). The
most common association rules are the Apriori algorithm [53], frequent
pattern growth (FP growth) [54], and equivalence class clustering and
bottom-up lattice traversal (ECLAT) [55].
2.3. Semi-supervised learning
Semi-supervised learning is a type of machine learning that com-
bines both supervised and unsupervised learning techniques. It is used
when there is a limited amount of labeled data available to train a
model; that is, there exist a number of labeled paired observations
( ) ( are designed to ensure that the review is carried out in a rigorous and
𝐗i , Yi , along with a much larger unlabeled dataset of features 𝐗𝑗
) reliable manner [27,29]. The main advantage of the PRISMA systematic
with no 𝑌𝑗 [6]. In such models, the labeled data are used to train the
model and the unlabeled data are often used to improve the accuracy
of the model. The main advantage of semi-supervised learning is that it
can be used to train models with limited labeled data. This is especially
useful in cases where labeled data are expensive or difficult to obtain.
Semi-supervised learning algorithms can be broadly divided into
two categories: generative and discriminative. In the former, unlabeled
data are used to generate new labeled data to help improve the model
training phase. In the latter case, unlabeled data are used to improve
the accuracy of the model by adjusting the weights of the model. Semi-
supervised learning has been used in various applications such as image
classification, natural language processing, and speech recognition. A
survey covering semi-supervised learning algorithms and applications
can be found in van Engelen and Hoos [56].
2.4. Reinforcement learning
Reinforcement learning is an area of artificial intelligence that has
seen a rise in popularity in recent years. It is a type of machine learning
that focuses on how software agents or machines should take actions in
a specific environment to maximize some notion of cumulative reward
(or minimize a notion of cumulative loss) [57]. Furthermore, reinforce-
ment learning algorithms are based on the idea of trial and error, where
the agent (that is, the program controlling the object of concern) is
given a set of possible actions and is rewarded for taking the correct
action. The agent then uses this feedback to adjust its behavior and
learn from its incorrect decisions. This process is repeated sequentially
until the agent has learned the optimal policy (or set of actions) for the
given environment. RL has many advantages over traditional machine
learning methods, such as being able to handle high-dimensional state
and action spaces, and the ability to learn from delayed rewards. In
addition, RL can be used in both supervised and unsupervised settings,
making it a powerful tool for many types of ML tasks. Finally, RL can
learn from its own mistakes without requiring large datasets or expert
guidance compared to other types of ML.
Reinforcement learning algorithms can be broadly divided into
two main categories: model-based and model-free [58]. Model-based
algorithms use a model of the environment to make predictions about
the future. In such a system, preferences are given priority over con-
sequences of actions; that is, the agent will attempt to perform an
action, regardless of what that action may result in, that yields the
maximum reward. Model-free algorithms, on the other hand, attempt
to learn the consequences of their actions by experience; that is, the
agent will adjust its policy for optimal rewards, based on the outcomes
of performing actions several times. Reinforcement learning algorithms
have been used in several applications, such as robotics, optimization of
complex systems (e.g., energy markets), and gaming. The most common
RL algorithms are Q-learning [59], deep Q network (DQN) [60], and
policy gradient [61].
5
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
3. Methodology
Systematic reviews are important tools for efficiently and effec-
tively synthesizing research on a given topic. This type of reviews
is an evidence-based approach used to assess the validity, precision,
and relevancy of existing research. Systematic reviews have become
increasingly popular as a source of evidence in recent years, due to the
methodical and transparent approach they provide to the evaluation of
research. One of the well-known protocols for conducting systematic
reviews is the PRISMA protocol, which is an evidence-based guideline
for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA proto-
col provides a set of guidelines for conducting systematic reviews that
review protocol is to ensure consistency of research methodology and
justice in the interpretation of results. This protocol encourages the
development of well-defined objectives, clear eligibility criteria, and a
transparent reporting process, providing a reliable narrative that can be
used to make evidence-based decisions. Furthermore, the standardized
approach of this protocol allows better comparability with other sys-
tematic reviews, allowing for more efficient synthesis of research and
stronger evidence-based recommendations. For the current systematic
review, the methodology discussed in this section follows the PRISMA
protocol guidelines. The search protocol for the current systematic
review and the selection of studies are presented in the following
subsections.
3.1. Search protocol
The databases searched for the systematic review were ScienceDi-
rect and Google Scholar. Other databases (e.g., Web of Science) were
excluded due to providing none or a small number of articles that al-
ready exist in the two databases mentioned. The search returned a total
of 965 results, of which 5 were duplicates, leaving the actual number
of results at 960. The search terms used were as follows: (‘‘machine
learning’’ OR ‘‘deep learning’’) AND (‘‘interdependent network’’ OR ‘‘in-
terdependent networks’’ OR ‘‘interdependent critical infrastructure’’)
AND ‘‘resilience’’. In the search terms, several possible interchangeable
terms were used, such as ‘‘interdependent networks’’ and ‘‘interdepen-
dent critical infrastructure’’ to consider as many results as possible in
connection with the research questions posed for the systematic review.
3.2. Selection of studies
The selection stage is the evaluation of each piece of literature
according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, particularly the time
and areas of research involved in the search, and the decision on
whether or not to exclude it. The selection process following the
PRISMA approach [27] is divided into three main phases.
In the first phase, the results of the search were filtered according
to inclusion and exclusion criteria, particularly the time and areas of
research involved in the search, where the topic searched involves a
combination of academic fields. In the current review, studies from the
past 22 years (from 2010 to the end of November 2022) were selected
in the field of resilience engineering. The time range is intentionally
long enough to cover all related studies in the field. In addition, in
the current systematic review protocol, peer-reviewed articles, disserta-
tions/theses, and conference proceedings are included in the selection
process in order to cover the research trend in the field. Furthermore,
of the two databases used for the search, 965 results (906 for Google
Scholar and 59 for ScienceDirect) were found with 5 duplicates. After
removing duplicates, we end up with 960 studies for the second phase
of screening.
In the second phase, all results were screened according to relevance
to the research questions only by title and abstract. In this phase,
683 results were excluded and 277 results were sought for retrieval.
B.A. Alkhaleel
Fig. 3. PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic review.
The retrieved results were filtered by full reading to identify the close
relation to the research objectives and questions. 260 results were
excluded at this point and 17 studies remained for the last phase.
In the last phase, the quality of the 17 results was checked to iden-
tify possible exclusions and no quality-based exclusions were found.
The final results were fully analyzed in detail for the systematic review,
as they passed all filtration processes. The selection process and the
findings of the review protocol can be found in Fig. 3.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, we analyze the current use of ML in resilience
engineering applications of ICISs based on the systematic review of the
literature. First, a summary of the results is introduced in 4.1. Second,
the applications of ML found are reviewed in 4.2. Applications are
divided according to the type of resilience phase applied at; that is,
the resilience of a CISs (or ICISs in our case) is generally characterized
with respect to a performance measure (e.g., flow, connectivity, amount
of demand satisfied) that evolves over time [62,63]. As illustrated
in Fig. 4, the phases of resilience actions can be divided into three
types: (i) pre-disruption, which is the time before the disruptive event
occurs (i.e., the preparedness phase), (ii) during disruption, which is the
6
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
time during the disruptive event occurrence time (i.e., the vulnerability
phase), and (iii) post-disruption, which is the time after the disruptive
event occurs (i.e., the recoverability or restoration phase). In each
time phase application category, we review the publications found,
as well as the type of ML used. Third, A comparison of applications
and a discussion of objectives are presented in 4.3. Finally, possible
future applications and opportunities, as well as study limitations, are
provided in 4.4, and 4.5, respectively.
4.1. Results summary
The current study reviewed 17 publications based on the selection
process discussed earlier and illustrated in Fig. 3. The publications
include 14 peer-reviewed articles, 2 conference proceedings, and 1 PhD
thesis. Table 1 reports the type of publication, title, journal/conference,
year, and publisher of the included publications. Fig. 5 shows the fre-
quency of publications per year and the yearly trend of the number of
publications. The results show that machine learning research studying
interdependent critical infrastructures is growing over time. In fact,
approximately 90% of the research work in this area was carried out
only in the last three years; where only the remaining 10% was carried
out before that. (see Fig. 6).
B.A. Alkhaleel
Fig. 4. Illustration of common time phases for resilience applications (adapted from Henry and Ramirez-Marquez [63]).
Fig. 5. The frequency of studies published per year.
4.2. Applications of ICISs resilience
In this subsection, the applications of ICISs resilience are divided
according to the time phase of the application: pre-disruption, during
disruption, and post-disruption. Publications with applications that
fall under these phases are summarized and explained in ascending
chronological order. Table 2 summarizes the applications found in the
literature, as well as the ML algorithms used, the type of each ML algo-
rithm, a description of each application, and the type of interdependent
networks for each application.
4.2.1. Pre-disruption applications
There are several applications found in the literature that focus on
the pre-disruption phase of the resilience of ICISs. Among the early ones
is the work by Buxton et al. [80] who recognized the importance of
modeling the interdependencies between CINs to ensure the successful
functioning of such systems. Buxton et al. [80] proposed a Bayesian
belief networks (BBNs) approach to model interdependent critical in-
frastructure components. Buxton et al. [80] used BBNs to map the
effects of interdependency between components through conditional
probability tables. Both bidirectional direct and indirect dependencies
are represented by the causal graph structure, allowing prognostic
7
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
and diagnostic reasoning (cause-to-effect and effect-to-cause), which
provides a useful basis for a decision support system. Almaleh and
Tipper [76] developed a holistic approach using network indicators and
linear regression to quantify the criticality assessment of geographic
zones in a large geographic area. Almaleh and Tipper [76] introduced
four measures (community, criticality, interdependency, and centrality)
that were used to identify the geographical zone most vital in a city.
The goal of the developed model is to increase the level of prepared-
ness by assessing the essential nodes of interdependent infrastructures,
allowing the adoption of risk mitigation strategies before any disruption
event. Therefore, the resilience of the system can be increased by
having a rank of vital zones in a city.
Wang et al. [74] developed a methodological framework for the
analysis of the resilience of ICISs using deep learning to identify the at-
tributes of the network topology. The developed framework can be used
to classify interdependent networks into different types of networks:
WS small-world networks, BA scale-free networks, and ER random
networks. The classification can be used to analyze the vulnerability
process of ICISs to different failure scenarios based on functional char-
acteristics. The proposed framework can help decision-makers develop
mitigation techniques and optimal protection strategies. Elvas et al.
[72] proposed an integrated resilience system that links interdependent
B.A. Alkhaleel International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646

Table 1
A summary of reviewed publications that includes the title, type of publication, journal/conference of publication, publication year, and publisher.

Publication Type Title Journal/Conference Year Publisher

Rangrazjeddi et al. Article Adaptive algorithm for dependent PLOS ONE 2022 Public Library of
[64] infrastructure network restoration in an Science (PLoS)
imperfect information sharing environment
Balakrishnan et al. Article Application of clustering algorithms for ArXiv 2022 arXiv
[65] dimensionality reduction in infrastructure
resilience prediction models
Dhulipala and Hruska Conference Efficient interdependent systems recovery 2022 Resilience Week 2022 IEEE
[66] proceeding modeling with deeponets (RWS)
Wu and Wang [67] Article Generative Design for Resilience of Journal of Mechanical 2022 ASME International
Interdependent Network Systems Design
Aslani and Mohebbi Article Learn to decompose multiobjective International 2022 Wiley
[68] optimization models for large-scale networks Transactions in
Operational Research
Ramineni et al. [69] Article Machine learning approaches to modeling Environment Systems 2022 Springer Science and
interdependent network restoration time and Decisions Business Media LLC
Rahimi-Golkhandan Article Predictive resilience of interdependent Socio-Economic 2022 Elsevier BV
et al. [70] water and transportation infrastructures: A Planning Sciences
sociotechnical approach
Srikanth et al. [71] Conference Deep reinforcement learning interdependent 2021 IEEE 2021 IEEE
proceeding healthcare critical infrastructure simulation International
model for dynamically varying COVID-19 Geoscience and
scenario–A case study of a Metro City Remote Sensing
Symposium (IGARSS)
Elvas et al. [72] Article Disaster management in smart cities Smart Cities 2021 MDPI AG
Yuan et al. [73] Article Internet of people enabled framework for Safety Science 2021 Elsevier BV
evaluating performance loss and resilience
of urban critical infrastructures
Wang et al. [74] Article Resilience analysis of interdependent critical International Journal 2021 Elsevier BV
infrastructure systems considering deep of Critical
learning and network theory Infrastructure
Protection
Yabe et al. [75] Article Resilience of interdependent urban Sustainable Cities and 2021 Elsevier BV
socio-physical systems using large-scale Society
mobility data: modeling recovery dynamics
Almaleh and Tipper Article Risk-based criticality assessment for smart Infrastructures 2021 MDPI AG
[76] critical infrastructures
Lee [77] PhD Heterogeneous data and probabilistic system – 2020 Georgia Institute of
Dissertation model analyses for enhanced situational Technology
awareness and resilience of critical
infrastructure systems
Zhou et al. [78] Article Integrating data-driven and physics-based International Journal 2020 Elsevier BV
approaches to characterize failures of of Critical
interdependent infrastructures Infrastructure
Protection
Ntalampiras et al. Article A fault diagnosis system for interdependent Reliability 2015 Elsevier BV
[79] critical infrastructures based on HMMs Engineering and
System Safety
Buxton et al. [80] Article Modeling interdependences of critical Proceedings of the 2010 New Zealand Society
infrastructure 2010 NZSEE for Earthquake
Conference Engineering (NZSEE)

critical infrastructures in a smart city to improve disaster resilience. A
data-driven approach is considered, using machine learning (although
not stated clearly what kind of algorithms were used) to improve the
pre-disruption phase of system resilience by the assessment of risks. The
developed system can support early event detection using Internet of
Things (IoT) data and social networks, allowing ML pattern recognition
techniques to be used to detect patterns of information from textual
or spatial datasets; this effective information analysis and management
system is considered critical for disaster management applications.
To efficiently design a resilient system of interconnected CINs, Wu
and Wang [67] proposed a generative design method that uses graph
learning algorithms. The developed generative design framework con-
tains a candidate design generator, using a USL algorithm known as
graph variational autoencoder (GVAE), and a performance estimator,
using an SSL algorithm known as graph convolutional networks (GCN).
The generator can intelligently extract useful properties from existing
systems and output new designs that meet predefined performance
criteria, while the estimator can efficiently predict the performance of
the generated design for a fast iterative learning process.
4.2.2. During disruption applications
Among the early applications of ICISs resilience during the dis-
ruption phase is the work of Ntalampiras et al. [79] who proposed
a probabilistic modeling scheme to analyze malevolent events that
could appear in ICISs. The proposed scheme is based on modeling
the relationship between datastreams coming from two network nodes
using an USL approach known as the hidden Markov model (HMM).
HMM is appropriate for dealing with dynamic systems as it can break
the problem into a specific number of states which are connected in
a probabilistic way. The goal of the model is to decide the state of
the ICIs system under attack. Zhou et al. [78] developed a frame-
work that integrates various data-driven methods and physics-based
approaches to help understand the propagation of failure between ICIs.
In this framework, text mining approaches, where unstructured text is

8
B.A. Alkhaleel
Fig. 6. The frequency of the occurrence of keywords in the studies.
transformed into a structured format to identify meaningful patterns of
information, are used to identify infrastructure failure patterns from
gray data, including newspapers, media reports, Internet news, text
data from social media, images, and videos. Using such data could
compensate for the lack of official data on cascading failures. Note
that the current approach can also be described as a pre-disruption
resilience application as the data can either be collected for historical
data to improve the preparedness of the system or current data to
improve the immediate decision-making process during disruption.
Lee [77] proposed a framework that uses heterogeneous data
sources, such as social media data, to monitor ICISs. The developed
framework is used to identify CISs damages by processing and classi-
fying real-time social media data. Lee [77] illustrated the use of the
framework by applying three supervised ML classifiers: SVM, naïve
Bayes models, and decision trees on text-based Twitter data to identify
ICISs damages. In addition, the classifiers were compared and the high-
est performing classifier is evaluated on a set of unlabeled data from
a historical event to validate the approach and simulate a real-time
detection scenario for a specific system of ICISs. A similar application
found in the literature is the work of Yuan et al. [73] who introduced an
Internet of People (IoP) enabled framework, which treats social media
9
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
users as human sensors, to assess the performance of road network
loss during disasters. Furthermore, the performance loss rate is used to
evaluate the overall resilience of the road network connected to other
infrastructures (hospitals in this case). An unsupervised ML method of
sentiment analysis (SA) using the Lexicon-based approach was used to
check if a collected tweet contains the road names in the road name
lexicon, and the collected information is used to evaluate road network
damages. Note that the use of IoP is theoretically similar to the use of
IoT in the work of Elvas et al. [72] discussed earlier. The work of Elvas
et al. [72] could also be described as a resilience application during the
disruption phase or even the post-disruption phase, as the developed
smart city system can support early event detection and cascading effect
of the failure. Finally, Srikanth et al. [71] developed a multi-agent deep
reinforcement learning (MADRL) simulation model that represents the
system of healthcare critical infrastructure characteristics, operations,
and interdependencies services under a disruption (e.g., disease growth
such as COVID-19). The MADRL model is based on a spatiotemporal
long short-term memory (ST-LSTM) method that predicts the growth
trend of disease cases (COVID-19 in the article) for a geographic
area. The aim here is to improve the decision-making capacity of
interdependent healthcare CI facilities to develop response activities
for various scenarios and prepare appropriate contingency plans.
4.2.3. Post-disruption applications
Among the first available works in the literature on ML applica-
tions in post-disruption resilience of ICISs is the work of Yabe et al.
[75]. Yabe et al. [75] proposed a data-driven modeling framework
to infer socio-physical interdependencies in urban systems and their
effects on regional-scale disaster recovery and resilience using large-
scale mobility data or point of interests (POIs). The number of daily
visits to each POI was estimated using mobile phone location data and
then the data points were spatially clustered to detect‘‘stay points’’
using the USL DBSCAN algorithm. Subsequently, from the estimated
stay points, the POI visited is estimated using an ML algorithm (not
stated in the article) using different features, such as the distance from
POI to the stay point, time of day, etc. Such data can be used to improve
post-disruption recovery actions and plans. Rahimi-Golkhandan et al.
[70] proposed a resilience assessment framework for interdependent
water and transportation infrastructures. The framework incorporates
the physical network of these infrastructures and indicators of social
vulnerability. Assuming different scenarios of extreme events and ran-
dom failures, resilience was measured as the level of service maintained
after a disruption. To measure post-disruption resilience, several SL
predictive models were implemented to quantify resilience in different
configurations. Algorithms applied in these models include Bayesian
additive regression trees (BART), random forest (RF), boosted regres-
sion tree (BRT), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), and
artificial neural networks (ANN). Rahimi-Golkhandan et al. [70] found,
using predictive models, the significant relationship between infrastruc-
ture and community resilience and the importance of incorporating
socioeconomic factors in the assessment of resilience.
Ramineni et al. [69] explored several SL techniques to predict the
time it takes for an interdependent network to be restored after a
disruption. The restoration rates of the disrupted components were
used as independent variables, and the resulting network restoration
time-dependent variable was generated from a network restoration
optimization model. The different predictive algorithms used were a
linear regression model, decision trees, gradient boosting, and random
forests. In the article, two different disruption techniques were imple-
mented: random and spatial disruptions. Ramineni et al. [69] found
that overall the linear regression model provided the best results for
random and spatial disruptions, while decision trees provide the least
accurate results. Aslani and Mohebbi [68] studied the restoration of
infrastructure systems under spatial and functional interdependencies
after cascading failures. A multiobjective optimization model covering
economic, social, and environmental objectives was proposed. To solve
B.A. Alkhaleel
the multiobjective optimization model, a learn-to-decompose frame-
work was developed, and a Gaussian process regression (GPR), which
is an SL algorithm, module was used to periodically improve the
decomposition algorithm and guide the search direction. Dhulipala
and Hruska [66] proposed the application of Deep Operator Networks
(DeepONets), which are SL architectures that identify mathematical
operators from data, to accelerate recovery modeling of interdependent
systems. One advantage of DeepONets is the ability to predict the
dynamics of underlying systems with accuracy while being computa-
tionally efficient (a small set of training data is needed). The results
of predicting the recovery of interdependent systems using DeepONets
were found to be satisfactory even with a small set of training data.
Balakrishnan et al. [65] proposed a clustering-based framework to
identify ICISs components that are similar in their vulnerability and
resilience characteristics to generate concise infrastructure resilience
prediction models. In the proposed framework, clustering algorithms
were used to group component-level features based on their topo-
logical and functional characteristics; then, combined dimensionality
reduction, to minimize the problem of high-dimensionality of features
and variables, and regression ML algorithms were used to predict the
network-wide impacts of disruptions to improve the resilience-based
restoration process. The proposed approach can help develop decision-
support systems for post-disaster recovery of ICISs. Finally, Rangraz-
jeddi et al. [64] developed an adaptive ML-based algorithm to integrate
predictions about the behavior of other decision-makers into an op-
timization problem of planning for the restoration of interdependent
networks. In addition, game theory was used with an imperfect infor-
mation sharing environment to integrate the predictions of the behavior
of other decision-makers and the optimization problem. Using a Markov
decision process concept, the proposed model checks in each time
period every remaining disrupted component to see if it is the next
candidate for recovery or not. To cluster each component into one
of two classes (recovered and not recovered) in each period, PCA is
performed on the data to find the variables that capture the greatest
variance, and the principal components were added to the predictors
of an SL random forest classifier. Based on the available prediction of
the actions of other decision-makers, the best recovery plan action was
chosen using the optimization model.
4.3. Summary and discussion of applications
The previous subsection reviewed the literature on ML applications
in the resilience of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. The
applications varied between proactive (i.e., pre-disruption) and reactive
(i.e., during disruption and post-disruption), with some applications
covering multiple phases of the resilience curve. The applications with
supervised learning algorithms constitute the highest number of ap-
plications. SL applications varied between the two main categories of
SL: classification and regression. USL applications were ranked second
in terms of the number of applications among the extracted litera-
ture, with clustering being the most used USL algorithm. Both semi-
supervised and reinforcement learning algorithms were only used once
in the reviewed applications.
The reviewed ML applications demonstrate the versatility of differ-
ent algorithms across resilience phases. Decision trees, random forests,
and regression models are commonly employed in the post-disruption
phase to predict restoration time, quantify resilience, and support
decision-making. Deep learning algorithms, such as convolutional neu-
ral networks (CNNs), are utilized to model and accelerate recovery
actions. In the pre-disruption phase, graph-based algorithms, cluster-
ing, and dimensionality reduction techniques are used in vulnerability
assessment and design optimization. During disruptions, reinforcement
learning, sentiment analysis, and text mining techniques contribute to
real-time decision-making, monitoring, and analysis of social media
data. It should be noted that many applications combine different ML
algorithms with different objectives, such as combining dimensionality
10
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
reduction with clustering and regression as in Balakrishnan et al. [65]
or combining regression algorithms with decision trees as in Ramineni
et al. [69].
The objectives of the applications reviewed vary by the type of
resilience phase. In the pre-disruption phase, the objectives of ML
algorithms include modeling the interdependencies between critical in-
frastructure components and quantifying their criticality (e.g., Bayesian
belief networks (BBNs)), assessing the criticality of geographic zones
and in a large geographic area (e.g., regression algorithms), identifying
the attributes of network topology and classifying interdependencies
(e.g., deep learning), and improving the resilience ICISs by generating
new designs that meet predefined performance criteria (e.g., graph
learning algorithms). The primary goal of ML applications during times
of disruption is to assess real-time data to improve understanding of
the current situation of disruption, and thus enhance the decision-
making process. For example, Ntalampiras et al. [79] used hidden
Markov models (HMMs) to model the relationship between datastreams
coming from power and communication networks to decide the state
of the ICISs under attack. In addition, another important type of ML
algorithm used during disruption is text mining, where infrastructure
failure patterns are identified from data posted on social media plat-
forms. Regarding the objectives of post-disruption ML applications, it is
notable that the two main objectives of such applications are to develop
predictive models of ICISs to quantify resilience and to optimize the
restoration activities after effect.
Overall, the applications of ML algorithms in different resilience
phases provide valuable insights into the potential of these techniques
to enhance the resilience of interdependent network systems. By lever-
aging predictive modeling, decision support, and real-time monitoring,
ML algorithms offer opportunities to mitigate disruptions, optimize
resource allocation, and improve the overall resilience of critical infras-
tructure. However, given the unpredictable nature of ICISs disruptions,
it is essential to pay more attention to USL applications. Moreover, it
is noteworthy that reinforcement learning techniques have not been
utilized in the literature, even though these algorithms can be used to
learn the best control policies for managing interdependencies and in-
creasing resilience, allocate resources properly, prioritize maintenance
activities, and reroute services to reduce the effect of disruptions and
maintain the system’s performance as a whole. To sum up, it is essential
to consider the particular features of the system, the available data,
and the goals of the resilience plan when selecting ML algorithms.
Further progress in the use of ML for resilience planning and response in
interconnected network systems will only be achieved through ongoing
research and development.
4.3.1. Applications categories and possible real-world implementations
In general, the ML applications reviewed can be mainly grouped
into four categories: modeling interdependencies and graph topology,
IoT data analytics, IoP and text mining, and optimization and game
theory. The first application is based on graph learning algorithms
and probabilistic models, where information on these two components
is used to find weaknesses in the system of network design, assign
probabilistic values to estimate dependencies between the system of
network components, and optimize post-disruption recovery based on
topological features and/or dependencies. Real-world examples for this
category may include using deep learning to analyze data on infras-
tructure components, their interactions, and dependencies, to construct
accurate network models. Furthermore, ML can be used to simulate
and analyze the propagation of failures and disruptions in ICISs by
incorporating data on failure scenarios, historical disruption data, and
network topology to predict the spread of failures and assess cascading
effects on interconnected systems. This information helps identify criti-
cal components of the network that, if disrupted, can have a significant
impact on the overall resilience of the system. Moreover, ML algorithms
can analyze the input/output flow data patterns (e.g., water flow in
water networks and power flow in power networks) of a network
B.A. Alkhaleel International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646

Table 2
A summary of reviewed ML applications in the literature that includes the resilience phase type, the ML algorithm and its type, a short description of each application, and the
type of interdependent network system used for each application.

Article Resilience phase ML algorithm Algorithm type Description Type of interdependent

type networks

Rangrazjeddi et al. Post-disruption Random forest SL, USL Decision making based on dictatorial Power and water
[64] classifier, Principle game theory
component analysis
(PCA)
Balakrishnan et al. Post-disruption Clustering and USL, SL Identify infrastructure components that Power, water and roads
[65] dimensionality are similar in their vulnerability and
reduction, Regression resilience characteristics
Dhulipala and Post-disruption Deep operator networks SL Accelerate the recovery modeling of Residential, commercial,
Hruska [66] (DeepONets) interdependent systems educational, and industrial
buildings
Wu and Wang [67] Pre-disruption Graph variational USL, SSL Developing a generative design method Supply chain networks and
autoencoder (GVAE), using graph learning algorithms power systems
Graph convolutional
network (GCN)
Aslani and Mohebbi Post-disruption Gaussian process SL Multibojective restoration optimization Water and transportation
[68] regression (GPR) of geospatial and functional
interdependent networks
Ramineni et al. [69] Post-disruption Linear regression SL Predict the restoration time of a system Water, gas and power
model, Decision trees, of an interdependent networks
Gradient boosting, and
Random forests
Rahimi-Golkhandan Post-disruption Bayesian additive SL Predictive model to quantify resilience Water and transportation
et al. [70] regression trees
(BART), Random forest
(RF), Boosted
regression tree (BRT),
Multivariate adaptive
regression splines
(MARS), Artificial
neural networks (ANN)
Srikanth et al. [71] During Multi-agent deep RL Simulation model of interdependent Interdependent healthcare
disruption reinforcement learning healthcare critical infrastructures during facilities
(MADRL) pandemic growth
Elvas et al. [72] Pre-disruption, NA NA A decision support system to improve Transportation,
During resilience of many infrastructure systems communication, energy
disruption, in a city distribution, water
Post-disruption distribution, and others
Yuan et al. [73] During Sentiment analysis (SA) USL The use of Internet of People (IoP) Roads and hospitals
disruption using Lexicon-based framework to improve resilience
approach
Wang et al. [74] Pre-disruption Convolutional neural SL Utilizing deep learning to identify the Power and gas
network (CNN) for topological attributes of networks
classification
Yabe et al. [75] Post-disruption DBSCAN algorithm, USL, SL A data-driven modeling framework to Water, telecommunication,
Classifying algorithm infer the socio-physical and social
interdependencies in urban systems
Almaleh and Tipper Pre-disruption Linear regression SL Improving preparedness by assessing the Energy,
[76] essential nodes of infrastructures telecommunication, water,
and healthcare
Lee [77] During Support vector machine SL Analysis of social media big data for Transportation, power, and
disruption (SVM), Naïve Bayes monitoring critical infrastructures water
model, Decision trees
Zhou et al. [78] Pre-disruption, Text mining SL Identifying failure patterns of critical Water supply system and
During infrastructures by mining news road transport network
disruption
Ntalampiras et al. During Hidden Markov model USL Probabilistic modeling scheme to Power and
[79] disruption (HMM) analyze malicious events affecting telecommunication
interdependent critical infrastructures
Buxton et al. [80] Pre-disruption Bayesian belief network SL Modeling dependencies of Artificial Power and water
(BBN) interdependent critical infrastructure
components

system to detect anomalies or changes to help in the early detection
of anomalous events such as malicious attacks, equipment failures,
allowing for timely intervention and mitigation. Finally, RL can be used
to develop resilience strategies as such algorithms can learn to make
decisions that maximize the resilience of the system under uncertainty.
The second application covering IoT is considered relatively new,
yet promising, since IoT can be used to develop systems that support
the detection of events of disruption and the identification of cascading
failures through ML information pattern recognition techniques. For
example, ML can predict power grid failures by analyzing IoT data

11
B.A. Alkhaleel
from the power grid sensors. This information can then be used to
take preventive measures, such as rerouting power, isolating damaged
components, and controlling power flow to other interdependent net-
works to avoid cascading failures. Also, ML algorithms can monitor
real-time IoT data streams from various sources to provide improved
situational awareness of critical infrastructure systems by recognizing
abnormal patterns, predicting system behavior, and providing real-
time alerts to operators. This enables proactive decision-making and
response to potential disruptions, improving the overall resilience of
ICISs. Furthermore, ML can be used to improve ICISs cybersecurity
by analyzing IoT data, such as network traffic, log files, and IoT
device behavior, to identify anomalous activities, intrusion attempts,
or malicious behavior, allowing a timely response and a higher overall
level of resilience.
Third, several applications used IoP and text mining to detect the
failure pattern of networks and the state of components during and after
disruptions. Data from social media (e.g., Twitter) can be a valuable
and reliable source to identify ICISs damages and failure patterns by
exploring textual data on social networks and transforming unstruc-
tured text into a structured format to identify meaningful patterns
of information. By applying natural language processing (NLP) tech-
niques, ML models can process and analyze text data from social media
platforms and news feeds to identify relevant information, extract key
themes, and detect emerging issues or concerns. For example, power
grid or water distribution network failures can be identified by posts on
social media, and emergency events can be classified according to their
severity using IoP data, such as emergency calls and crowd-sourced
information.
Finally, few applications use ML to improve an optimization al-
gorithm or framework, especially in the post-disruption restoration
decision-making process. However, many possible real-world appli-
cations can be applied under this category. For example, several ML
algorithms can be used to optimize resource allocation in ICISs. Fur-
thermore, combining ML with game theory can be beneficial to ICISs
having multiple stakeholders and decision-makers. For example, ML
models with game theory can simulate and optimize the behavior of
different stakeholders, considering their preferences, constraints, and
strategic interactions, which helps to understand the dynamics of the
system, resolve conflicts, and design effective coordination mechanisms
to improve the resilience of ICISs.
4.4. Future opportunities
There are many future opportunities possible for ML applications in
the field of resilience of interdependent critical infrastructure systems.
Here, we try to outline some future opportunities for ML in the field.
Based on the review, some topics or applications discussed next may be
related to the ongoing effort of researchers, expansion of applications
discussed in the article, and others are more speculative in nature, but
are included because of their potential to promote research in the field.
Of course, there may be other opportunities not mentioned here, but for
the sake of brevity, we limit this discussion to five topics subjectively.
• Quantification and reduction of uncertainty:
in post-disruption recovery applications, the vast majority of
studies are based on deterministic assumptions (that is, com-
plete information on restoration resources and the duration of
activities) [62]. However, the restoration of critical infrastructure
systems is complicated by the many decisions to be made in a
highly uncertain environment exacerbated by the disaster itself,
the reaction of people, and the limited ability to gather infor-
mation [81]. ML could be used to combine data from different
data sources to identify sources of uncertainty and quantify the
uncertainty of a disruption in terms of general impact, network
state, traffic state, and level of risk, to prioritize immediate
actions. In fact, ML can be part of the current research trend in
post-disaster stochastic optimization modeling [62,82]. ML can be
12
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
used to improve the scenario reduction process used to quantify
uncertainty, as well as to improve the optimization algorithms
used in stochastic programming [62].
• Understanding the dependencies of ICISs by integrating ML
with disaster and disruption databases: planning for the future
starts with understanding the past. It is essential to maintain
databases for historical disruptions and disasters in order to an-
alyze the dependencies between infrastructure systems. ML can
be used to analyze previous historical data to develop better
prevention, mitigation, and recovery strategies. Different types of
dependencies can be studied for a given system and ranked based
on their priority for a specific type of disruption. In addition,
the weakest components of networks or the weakest network
in a system of networks can be identified for a given type of
disruption using ML graph learning and classification algorithms.
Therefore, the overall decision-making process pre- and post-
disruption could be improved through the use of data-driven
approaches facilitated through ML.
• The human factor integration: the human factor of critical
infrastructure systems refers to the impact of various human
characteristics on system operations and management [83]. This
factor is a significant contributor to ICISs failures that affect the
operation and performance of such critical systems. Advanced
techniques are required to simulate the dynamic influence be-
tween the human and technical aspects of ICISs to understand the
evolution of man-made disasters in ICISs and propose measures
to improve the resilience of ICISs. ML could be an excellent
candidate for this purpose; it can be used to identify potential
human-related failure points in systems, make informed decisions
to mitigate them, classify disruptions into man-made, natural,
malevolent, or other types, and identify the impact of human
operations on system vulnerabilities resulting from system-wide
interdependencies. A systematic review on the human factor in
modeling the resilience of critical infrastructure systems can be
found in Magoua and Li [84].
• Dynamic and risk-averse optimization: the majority of re-
silience models assume that planning and restoration before and
after a disaster are determined initially and cannot be altered af-
terward [16]. Reinforcement learning techniques (e.g., Q-learning
and dynamic programming) can relax this assumption by en-
abling sequential change of the plan as time goes on, adding
more flexibility to the models. Furthermore, given the nature
of resilience problems in which decisions are made under high-
risk conditions, risk-averse dynamic optimization methods that
utilize reinforcement learning have the potential to overcome the
obstacle of the nature of risk. Currently, there are several risk-
averse stochastic optimization models, but none of them use a
dynamic approach through ML [62,82].
• Expanding the integration of ML with IoT through wearables:
In the work of Elvas et al. [72] discussed earlier, we noted the use
of IoT data to improve resilience in smart cities. However, one of
the most important IoT resilience applications could be the use of
wearable devices known as wearables, which are smart devices
designed to be weared on the human body such as smart watches
and fitness trackers, to plan for resilience. Wearables can provide
data on the movement and location of communities in disrupted
locations, the general state of traffic [85], the state of health
(e.g., injuries, deaths and emergencies), especially for vulnerable
people (e.g., disabled people) and the detection of environmental
conditions [86]. Of course, this comes with its own challenges in
terms of privacy, regulations, security, and others [87]; however,
the benefits of combining such data from sensors deployed around
the geographic area of a disruption with other data streams would
allow an improved data-driven decision-making process utilizing
ML approaches.
B.A. Alkhaleel
4.5. Limitations of this study
It is important to acknowledge certain limitations of this study
which are part of known limitations of the PRISMA protocol. First, the
criteria used to select papers may have resulted in the exclusion of rele-
vant studies due to limitations in search terms and searched databases.
This could introduce selection bias and impact the comprehensiveness
of the review. Second, since systematic reviews are based on data
reported in included studies, incomplete or selective reporting of data
can limit the ability to assess certain outcome measures, potentially
affecting the validity of the findings. For example, one of the studies
did not specify the exact ML algorithm and classification of it. Other
studies did not explain how the data were collected. Third, the quality
and objectivity of a systematic review can be influenced by the reviewer
who conducts the study selection, inclusion and exclusion, and data
extraction and analysis. The subjectivity of the reviewer can introduce
bias into the review process. Finally, it should be noted that the
findings of the current systematic review are based on included studies
and may not be universally applicable across different populations,
settings, or contexts. The findings should be interpreted with caution,
considering the specific characteristics of the included studies and the
target population of interest.
5. Conclusion
Systematic reviews provide researchers and practitioners with an
important opportunity to apply existing knowledge to research and
other activities. The results of such reviews are reliable and unbiased,
as systematic reviews need to follow a research protocol. In this article,
a systematic review of machine learning applications in the field of re-
silience of interdependent critical infrastructure systems was presented
following the guidelines of the PRISMA protocol. The systematic review
of the literature is chosen to address the shortage of knowledge and
scattered research articles.
Machine learning is an effective tool for modeling complex systems
with many applications in various fields and disciplines. The field of
resilience of interdependent critical infrastructures is no exception, as
the opportunities and applications are limitless. In fact, resilience-based
decisions are critical as they are generally made under high-risk con-
ditions. This requires an overall improved data-driven decision-making
process where the contribution of ML is valuable.
In this work, an overview of the different categories of ML was
presented, as well as the different types of interdependencies of critical
infrastructure systems. In addition, the literature on ML applications
in the field of resilience of ICISs was systematically reviewed and ex-
plored. There are several applications discussed that cover areas such as
interdependencies modeling and graph topology, IoT data analytics, IoP
and text mining, and optimization and game theory. However, there is
a lack of research in this field, and many applications have not yet been
explored. Finally, several future opportunities were outlined in the field
of applied ML in ICISs resilience to encourage resilience engineering
communities to adapt and use ML for various ICISs applications and
utilize its potential.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
13
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
References
[1] K.P. Murphy, Machine Learning - A Probabilistic Perspective, in: Adaptive
Computation and Machine Learning Series, MIT Press, 2012.
[2] A. Qayyum, J. Qadir, M. Bilal, A. Al-Fuqaha, Secure and robust machine learning
for healthcare: A survey, IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 14 (2021) 156–180, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/rbme.2020.3013489.
[3] C. Korkmaz, A.-P. Correia, A review of research on machine learning in
educational technology, Educ. Media Int. 56 (3) (2019) 250–267, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09523987.2019.1669875.
[4] A. Tizghadam, H. Khazaei, M.H.Y. Moghaddam, Y. Hassan, Machine learning
in transportation, J. Adv. Transp. 2019 (2019) 1–3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/
2019/4359785.
[5] M.T. Ballestar, P. Grau-Carles, J. Sainz, Predicting customer quality in e-
commerce social networks: a machine learning approach, Rev. Manag. Sci. 13
(3) (2018) 589–603, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0316-x.
[6] Z. Xu, J.H. Saleh, Machine learning for reliability engineering and safety
applications: Review of current status and future opportunities, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 211 (2021) 107530, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107530.
[7] Force, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, Hurricane sandy rebuilding
strategy, in: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
DC, 2013.
[8] A. Meltzer, S. Beck, M. Ruiz, M. Hoskins, L. Soto-Cordero, J.C. Stachnik,
C. Lynner, R. Porritt, D. Portner, A. Alvarado, S. Hernandez, H. Yepes, P.
Charvis, Y. Font, M. Regnier, H. Agurto-Detzel, A. Rietbrock, S. Leon-Rios, E.D.
Mercerat, The 2016 Mw 7.8 pedernales, ecuador, earthquake: Rapid response
deployment, Seismol. Res. Lett. 90 (3) (2019) 1346–1354, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1785/0220180364.
[9] W. House, Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21 : Critical Infrastructure Security
and Resilience, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC., 2013.
[10] G.M. Karagiannis, S. Chondrogiannis, E. Krausmann, Z.I. Turksezer, Power
Grid Recovery After Natural Hazard Impact, Technical Report EUR 28844 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/
10.2760/87402.
[11] E. Zio, Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures,
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 152 (2016) 137–150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.
2016.02.009.
[12] S.M. Rinaldi, J.P. Peerenboom, T.K. Kelly, Identifying, understanding, and
analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies, IEEE Control Syst. 21 (6)
(2001) 11–25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/37.969131.
[13] H.-S.J. Min, W. Beyeler, T. Brown, Y.J. Son, A.T. Jones, Toward modeling and
simulation of critical national infrastructure interdependencies, IIE Trans. 39 (1)
(2007) 57–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07408170600940005.
[14] T.C. Sharkey, B. Cavdaroglu, H. Nguyen, J. Holman, J.E. Mitchell, W.A. Wal-
lace, Interdependent network restoration: On the value of information-sharing,
European J. Oper. Res. 244 (1) (2015) 309–321.
[15] M. Amin, Toward secure and resilient interdependent infrastructures, J. In-
frastructure Syst. 8 (3) (2002) 67–75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-
0342(2002)8:3(67).
[16] B.A. Alkhaleel, H. Liao, K.M. Sullivan, Model and solution method for mean-risk
cost-based post-disruption restoration of interdependent critical infrastructure
networks, Comput. Oper. Res. 144 (2022) 105812, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cor.2022.105812.
[17] Y. Almoghathawi, K. Barker, L.A. Albert, Resilience-driven restoration model for
interdependent infrastructure networks, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 185 (2019) 12–23.
[18] M.M. Danziger, L.M. Shekhtman, A. Bashan, Y. Berezin, S. Havlin, Vulnerability
of interdependent networks and networks of networks, in: Understanding Com-
plex Systems, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016, pp. 79–99,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23947-7_5.
[19] M. Ouyang, Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical
infrastructure systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 121 (2014) 43–60, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.040.
[20] J. Peerenboom, R. Fisher, S. Rinaldi, T. Kelly, Studying the chain reaction, Electr.
Perspect. 27 (1) (2002) 22–35.
[21] R. Guidotti, H. Chmielewski, V. Unnikrishnan, P. Gardoni, T. McAllister, J.
van de Lindt, Modeling the resilience of critical infrastructure: the role of
network dependencies, Sustain. Resilient Infrastructure 1 (3–4) (2016) 153–168,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2016.1254999.
[22] E.E. Lee I.I., J.E. Mitchell, W.A. Wallace, Restoration of services in interdepen-
dent infrastructure systems: A network flows approach, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man
Cybern. C (Appl. Rev.) 37 (6) (2007) 1303–1317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TSMCC.2007.905859.
[23] W. Wallace, D. Mendonca, E. Lee, J. Mitchell, J. Wallace, J. Monday, Managing
disruptions to critical interdependent infrastructures in the context of the 2001
world trade center attack. In beyond september 11th: An account of, Post-Disaster
Res. 39 (2003) 165–198, special publication.
[24] R. Zimmerman, Social implications of infrastructure network interactions,
J. Urban Technol. 8 (3) (2001) 97–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
106307301753430764.
B.A. Alkhaleel
[25] P. Zhang, S. Peeta, A generalized modeling framework to analyze interdepen-
dencies among infrastructure systems, Transp. Res. B 45 (3) (2011) 553–579,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.10.001.
[26] V.S. Kumar, J. Prasad, R. Samikannu, A critical review of cyber security and
cyber terrorism - threats to critical infrastructure in the energy sector, Int. J. Crit.
Infrastruct. 14 (2) (2018) 101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijcis.2018.091932.
[27] M.J. Page, D. Moher, P.M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T.C. Hoffmann, C.D. Mulrow,
L. Shamseer, J.M. Tetzlaff, E.A. Akl, S.E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J.M.
Grimshaw, A. rn Hróbjartsson, M.M. Lalu, T. Li, E.W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S.
McDonald, L.A. McGuinness, L.A. Stewart, J. Thomas, A.C. Tricco, V.A. Welch,
P. Whiting, J.E. McKenzie, PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated
guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ (2021) n160,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.
[28] S. Walker-Roberts, M. Hammoudeh, A. Dehghantanha, A systematic review of
the availability and efficacy of countermeasures to internal threats in healthcare
critical infrastructure, IEEE Access 6 (2018) 25167–25177, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/access.2018.2817560.
[29] A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P.C. Gøtzsche, J.P.A. Ioannidis,
M. Clarke, P.J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, D. Moher, The PRISMA statement
for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration, PLoS Med. 6 (7) (2009)
e1000100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
[30] A. Haldorai, A. Ramu, S.A.R. Khan, in: A. Haldorai, A. Ramu, S.A.R. Khan (Eds.),
Business Intelligence for Enterprise Internet of Things, Springer, 2020, p. 299,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44407-5.
[31] S. Xu, Bayesian Naïve Bayes classifiers to text classification, J. Inf. Sci. 44 (1)
(2018) 48–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551516677946.
[32] A.J. Myles, R.N. Feudale, Y. Liu, N.A. Woody, S.D. Brown, An introduction to
decision tree modeling, J. Chemometr. 18 (6) (2004) 275–285, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/cem.873.
[33] S. Suthaharan, Support vector machine, in: Machine Learning Models and
Algorithms for Big Data Classification: Thinking with Examples for Effective
Learning, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2016, pp. 207–235, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/978-1-4899-7641-3_9.
[34] O. Kramer, K-nearest neighbors, in: Dimensionality Reduction with Unsupervised
Nearest Neighbors, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp.
13–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38652-7_2.
[35] M. Jahn, Artificial neural network regression models in a panel setting: Predicting
economic growth, Econ. Model. 91 (2020) 148–154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.econmod.2020.06.008.
[36] M. Awad, R. Khanna, Support vector regression, in: Efficient Learning Machines,
A Press, 2015, pp. 67–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-5990-9_4.
[37] K. Kim, J. sik Hong, A hybrid decision tree algorithm for mixed numeric and
categorical data in regression analysis, Pattern Recognit. Lett. 98 (2017) 39–45,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2017.08.011.
[38] C. Hans, Bayesian lasso regression, Biometrika 96 (4) (2009) 835–845, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asp047.
[39] G.C. McDonald, Ridge regression, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 1 (1)
(2009) 93–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wics.14.
[40] P. Berkhin, A survey of clustering data mining techniques, in: J. Kogan, C.
Nicholas, M. Teboulle (Eds.), Grouping Multidimensional Data, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 25–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28349-
8_2.
[41] J.A. Hartigan, M.A. Wong, Algorithm AS 136: A K-means clustering algorithm,
Appl. Stat. 28 (1) (1979) 100, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2346830.
[42] M.Á. Carreira-Perpiñán, A review of mean-shift algorithms for clustering, 2015,
http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1503.00687.
[43] E. Schubert, J. Sander, M. Ester, H.P. Kriegel, X. Xu, DBSCAN revisited, revisited:
Why and how you should (still) use DBSCAN, ACM Trans. Database Syst. 42 (3)
(2017) 1–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3068335.
[44] A. Bouguettaya, Q. Yu, X. Liu, X. Zhou, A. Song, Efficient agglomerative
hierarchical clustering, Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (5) (2015) 2785–2797, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.09.054.
[45] M. Ouyang, W.J. Welsh, P. Georgopoulos, Gaussian mixture clustering and
imputation of microarray data, Bioinformatics 20 (6) (2004) 917–923, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth007.
[46] D. Xu, Y. Tian, A comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms, Ann. Data Sci.
2 (2) (2015) 165–193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40745-015-0040-1.
[47] S. Reeves, Z. Zhe, Sequential algorithms for observation selection, IEEE Trans.
Signal Process. 47 (1) (1999) 123–132, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/78.738245.
[48] M.K. Islam, M.M. Alam, M.B. Islam, K. Mohiuddin, A.K. Das, M.S. Kaonain,
An adaptive feature dimensionality reduction technique based on random forest
on employee turnover prediction model, in: M. Singh, P.K. Gupta, V. Tyagi,
J. Flusser, T. Ören (Eds.), Advances in Computing and Data Sciences, Springer
Singapore, Singapore, 2018, pp. 269–278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
13-1813-9_27.
[49] H. Abdi, L.J. Williams, Principal component analysis, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.
Comput. Stat. 2 (4) (2010) 433–459, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wics.101.
[50] H. Xie, J. Li, H. Xue, A survey of dimensionality reduction techniques based on
random projection, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1706.04371.
14
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
[51] J.V. Stone, Independent component analysis: an introduction, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 6 (2) (2002) 59–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01813-
1.
[52] K.J. Cios, R.W. Swiniarski, W. Pedrycz, L.A. Kurgan, Unsupervised learning:
Association rules, in: Data Mining, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2007, pp. 289–306,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36795-8_10.
[53] M. Hegland, The apriori algorithm – a tutorial, in: Lecture Notes Series, Institute
for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore, World Scientific,
2007, pp. 209–262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812709066_0006.
[54] K.-C. Lin, I.-E. Liao, Z.-S. Chen, An improved frequent pattern growth method
for mining association rules, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (5) (2011) 5154–5161,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.047.
[55] X. Yu, H. Wang, Improvement of eclat algorithm based on support in frequent
itemset mining, J. Comput. 9 (9) (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jcp.9.9.2116-
2123.
[56] J.E. van Engelen, H.H. Hoos, A survey on semi-supervised learning, in: T.
Fawcett. (Ed.), Mach. Learn. 109 (2) (2019) 373–440, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10994-019-05855-6.
[57] S.S. Mousavi, M. Schukat, E. Howley, Deep reinforcement learning: An overview,
in: Y. Bi, S. Kapoor, R. Bhatia (Eds.), Proceedings of SAI Intelligent Systems
Conference (IntelliSys) 2016, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp.
426–440, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56991-8_32.
[58] J. Gläscher, N. Daw, P. Dayan, J.P. O’Doherty, States versus rewards: Disso-
ciable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free
reinforcement learning, Neuron 66 (4) (2010) 585–595, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.neuron.2010.04.016.
[59] J. Clifton, E. Laber, Q-learning: Theory and applications, Annu. Rev. Stat.
Appl. 7 (1) (2020) 279–301, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-
031219-041220.
[60] Y. Wang, H. Liu, W. Zheng, Y. Xia, Y. Li, P. Chen, K. Guo, H. Xie,
Multi-objective workflow scheduling with deep-Q-network-based multi-agent
reinforcement learning, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 39974–39982, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/access.2019.2902846.
[61] Y. Guan, J. Duan, S. Li, J. Li, J. Chen, B. Cheng, Mixed policy gradient, 2021.
[62] B.A. Alkhaleel, H. Liao, K.M. Sullivan, Risk and resilience-based optimal post-
disruption restoration for critical infrastructures under uncertainty, European J.
Oper. Res. 296 (1) (2022) 174–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.
025.
[63] D. Henry, J.E. Ramirez-Marquez, Generic metrics and quantitative approaches
for system resilience as a function of time, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 99 (2012)
114–122.
[64] A. Rangrazjeddi, A.D. González, K. Barker, Adaptive algorithm for dependent
infrastructure network restoration in an imperfect information sharing environ-
ment, in: G. Oliva (Ed.), PLoS One 17 (8) (2022) e0270407, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0270407.
[65] S. Balakrishnan, B. Cassottana, A. Verma, Application of clustering algorithms
for dimensionality reduction in infrastructure resilience prediction models, 2022,
http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2205.03316, arXiv, arXiv:2205.03316.
[66] S.L.N. Dhulipala, R.C. Hruska, Efficient interdependent systems recovery
modeling with DeepONets, 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2206.
10829.
[67] J. Wu, P. Wang, Generative design for resilience of interdependent network
systems, J. Mech. Des. 145 (3) (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4056078.
[68] B. Aslani, S. Mohebbi, Learn to decompose multiobjective optimization models
for large-scale networks, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
itor.13169.
[69] G. Ramineni, N. Ghorbani-Renani, K. Barker, A.D. González, T. Razzaghi, S. Rad-
hakrishnan, Machine learning approaches to modeling interdependent network
restoration time, Environ. Syst. Decis. (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-
022-09882-y.
[70] A. Rahimi-Golkhandan, B. Aslani, S. Mohebbi, Predictive resilience of inter-
dependent water and transportation infrastructures: A sociotechnical approach,
Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 80 (2022) 101166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.
101166.
[71] G. Srikanth, N. Nukavarapu, S. Durbha, Deep reinforcement learning interdepen-
dent healthcare critical infrastructure simulation model for dynamically varying
COVID-19 scenario - A case study of a metro city, in: 2021 IEEE International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, IEEE, 2021, pp. 8499–8502,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/igarss47720.2021.9554875.
[72] L.B. Elvas, B.M. Mataloto, A.L. Martins, J.C. Ferreira, Disaster management
in smart cities, in: P. Siano (Ed.), Smart Cities 4 (2) (2021) 819–839, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4020042.
[73] F. Yuan, R. Liu, L. Mao, M. Li, Internet of people enabled framework for
evaluating performance loss and resilience of urban critical infrastructures, Saf.
Sci. 134 (2021) 105079, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105079.
[74] S. Wang, X. Gu, S. Luan, M. Zhao, Resilience analysis of interdependent critical
infrastructure systems considering deep learning and network theory, Int. J.
Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 35 (2021) 100459, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2021.
100459.
B.A. Alkhaleel
[75] T. Yabe, P.S.C. Rao, S.V. Ukkusuri, Resilience of interdependent urban socio-
physical systems using large-scale mobility data: Modeling recovery dynamics,
Sustainable Cities Soc. 75 (2021) 103237, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.
103237.
[76] A. Almaleh, D. Tipper, Risk-based criticality assessment for smart criti-
cal infrastructures, Infrastructures 7 (1) (2021) 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
infrastructures7010003.
[77] C. Lee, Heterogeneous Data and Probabilistic System Model Analyses for En-
hanced Situational Awareness and Resilience of Critical Infrastructure Systems
(Ph.D. thesis), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2020.
[78] S. Zhou, Y. Yang, S.T. Ng, J.F. Xu, D. Li, Integrating data-driven and physics-
based approaches to characterize failures of interdependent infrastructures, Int.
J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 31 (2020) 100391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.
2020.100391.
[79] S. Ntalampiras, Y. Soupionis, G. Giannopoulos, A fault diagnosis system for
interdependent critical infrastructures based on HMMs, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
138 (2015) 73–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.024.
[80] R. Buxton, S.R. Uma, A.B. King, Modelling interdependences of critical in-
frastructure, in: Proceedings of the 2010 NZSEE Conference, New Zealand,
2010.
[81] Y. Fang, G. Sansavini, Optimum post-disruption restoration under uncertainty for
enhancing critical infrastructure resilience, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 185 (January
2019) (2019) 1–11.
15
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 44 (2024) 100646
[82] J. Kong, C. Zhang, S.P. Simonovic, Resilience and risk-based restoration strategies
for critical infrastructure under uncertain disaster scenarios, Sustainable Cities
Soc. 92 (2023) 104510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104510.
[83] J.J. Magoua, F. Wang, N. Li, D. Fang, Incorporating the human factor in modeling
the operational resilience of interdependent infrastructure systems, Autom.
Constr. 149 (models) (2023) 104789, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.
104789.
[84] J.J. Magoua, N. Li, The human factor in the disaster resilience modeling of
critical infrastructure systems, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 232 (2023) 109073, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.109073.
[85] J.R. Rizzo, C. Feng, R. Wang, D. Sheng, et al., Wearables to Command More
Access and Inclusion in a Smarter Transportation System, Technical Report, Con-
nected Cities for Smart Mobility toward Accessible and Resilient Transportation
Center (C2SMART), New York, US, 2022.
[86] R.J. Cureau, I. Pigliautile, A.L. Pisello, A new wearable system for sens-
ing outdoor environmental conditions for monitoring hyper-microclimate, in:
D. Kouzoudis (Ed.), Sensors 22 (2) (2022) 502, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
s22020502.
[87] J.P. Sterbenz, Smart city and IoT resilience, survivability, and disruption toler-
ance: Challenges, modelling, and a survey of research opportunities, in: 2017
9th International Workshop on Resilient Networks Design and Modeling, RNDM,
IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/rndm.2017.8093025.