IEEE PSS2B Versus PSS4B: The Limits of Performance of Modern Power System Stabilizers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IEEE Std 421.5 as revised by the IEEE excitation system subcommittee will introduce a new type of power system stabilizer model, the multiband power system stabilizers (PSSs). Although it requires two inputs, like the widely used IEEE PSS2B, an integral of accelerating power PSS introduced at the beginning of the nineties as the first practical implementation of a digital PSS, the underlying principle of the new IEEE PSS4B makes it sharply different. The present paper aims at assessing the two families of PSS's from the point of view of their relative performance in tackling a wide range of system problems, using a single set of so-called robust/universal settings. Conclusions are drawn from a large number of small- and large-signal analyzes performed on several test systems and on an actual Hydro-Que/spl acute/bec system, paying due account to the load models and governor response. Since either of the candidate PSSs can easily be tuned to perform acceptably in a standard local and/or inter-area oscillation scenario, emphasis will be put on comparing them at the inherent limits of the PSS concept, i.e., considering excessive VAR modulation during large generation rejection, fast load pickup on hydro units, and excessive torsional interactions during faults on large turbine-generators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it