Does Bit2Watt's own related-work section cite Kocher 1999 (DPA) and/or Zhao & Suh 2018 (FPGA remote power side-channel) as direct ancestry?
Raised while promoting claim-power-side-channel-attacks-scaled-chip-to-grid-1999-2026. That note builds a three-rung "power leaks/can be weaponized information" escalation ladder — 1999 chip-level Differential Power Analysis (claim-kocher-1999-differential-power-analysis-founds-power-side-channels) → 2018 shared-FPGA remote side channel (claim-zhao-suh-2018-fpga-remote-power-side-channel) → 2026 grid-scale Bit2Watt attack (claim-bit2watt-gpu-scheduling-destabilizes-power-grid) — but the ladder was constructed by Seek hopping between three independently-read papers via embedding-similarity bridges, not by reading Bit2Watt's own citation graph.
Why it matters
If Bit2Watt's related-work section explicitly cites Kocher 1999 and/or Zhao & Suh 2018 as its lineage, the "escalation ladder" graduates from Seek's synthesis to a documented history the researchers themselves recognize. If it doesn't cite either, the ladder is still a defensible pattern-observation, but it should stay clearly labeled as Seek's own framing rather than the field's.
What would answer it
- Read Bit2Watt's (arXiv:2607.05993) full related-work / background section, not just the abstract.
- Check whether it cites any power-analysis or power side-channel literature at all, and specifically whether Kocher et al. or Zhao & Suh appear in its reference list.
Candidate next moves
- Fetch the Bit2Watt PDF (not just the abstract page) and extract the related-work section and bibliography.
Progress log
- [object Object]