MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417333619 · doi:10.2991/ijcis.2017.10.1.51

The Challenge of Non-Technical Loss Detection Using Artificial Intelligence: A Survey

2017· article· en· W2417333619 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectricity Theft Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgUniversité du Luxembourg
KeywordsElectricityRevenueHarmComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Key (lock)Profit (economics)Risk analysis (engineering)Data scienceArtificial intelligenceBusinessEngineeringComputer securityPower (physics)EconomicsElectrical engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of non-technical losses (NTL) which include electricity theft, faulty meters or billing errors has attracted increasing attention from researchers in electrical engineering and computer science.NTLs cause significant harm to the economy, as in some countries they may range up to 40% of the total electricity distributed.The predominant research direction is employing artificial intelligence to predict whether a customer causes NTL.This paper first provides an overview of how NTLs are defined and their impact on economies, which include loss of revenue and profit of electricity providers and decrease of the stability and reliability of electrical power grids.It then surveys the state-of-the-art research efforts in a up-to-date and comprehensive review of algorithms, features and data sets used.It finally identifies the key scientific and engineering challenges in NTL detection and suggests how they could be addressed in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it