A Machine Learning Approach to Meter Placement for Power Quality Estimation in Smart Grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high-measuring cost, the monitoring of power quality (PQ) is nontrivial. This paper is aimed at reducing the cost of PQ monitoring in power network. Using a real-world PQ dataset, this paper adopts a learn-from-data approach to obtain a device latent feature model, which captures the device behavior as a PQ transition function. With the latent feature model, the power network could be modeled, in analogy, as a data-driven network, which presents the opportunity to use the well-investigated network monitoring and data estimation algorithms to solve the network quality monitoring problem in power grid. Based on this network model, algorithms are proposed to intelligently place measurement devices on suitable power links to reduce the uncertainty of PQ estimation on unmonitored power links. The meter placement algorithms use entropy-based measurements and Bayesian network models to identify the most suitable power links for PQ meter placement. Evaluation results on various simulated networks including IEEE distribution test feeder system show that the meter placement solution is efficient, and has the potential to significantly reduce the uncertainty of PQ values on unmonitored power links.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".