Balancing System Survivability and Cost of Smart Grid Via Modeling Cascading Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a typical emerging application of cyber physical system, smart power grid is composed of interdependent power grid and communication/control networks. The latter one contains relay nodes for communication and operation centers to control power grid. Failure in one network might cause failures in the other. In addition, these failures may occur recursively between the two networks, leading to cascading failures. We propose a k-to- n interdependence model for smart grid. Each relay node and operation center is supported by only one power station, while each power station is monitored and controlled by k operation centers. Each operation center controls n power stations. We show that the system controlling cost is proportional to k. Through calculating the fraction of functioning parts (survival ratio) using percolation theory and generating functions, we reveal the nonlinear relation between controlling cost and system robustness, and use graphic solution to prove that a threshold exists for the proportion of faulty nodes, beyond which the system collapses. The extensive simulations validate our analysis, determine the percentage of survivals and the critical values for different system parameters. The mathematical and experimental results show that smart grid with higher controlling cost has a sharper transition, and thus is more robust. This is the first paper that focuses on on improving smart power grid robustness by changing monitoring strategies from an interdependent complex networks perspective.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".