MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005276218 · doi:10.1049/iet-stg.2019.0191

Real‐time stability assessment in smart cyber‐physical grids: a deep learning approach

2020· article· en· W3005276218 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Darbandi, Amirreza Jafari, Hadis Karimipour, Ali Dehghantanha, Farnaz Derakhshan, Kim‐Kwang Raymond Choo

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Smart Grid · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridComputer scienceCyber-physical systemElectric power systemStability (learning theory)Artificial neural networkRedundancy (engineering)Transient (computer programming)Feed forwardBackpropagationReal-time computingProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPower (physics)Control engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing coupling between the physical and communication layers in the cyber‐physical system (CPS) brings up new challenges in system monitoring and control. Smart power grids with the integration of information and communication technologies are one of the most important types of CPS. Proper monitoring and control of the smart grid are highly dependent on the transient stability assessment (TSA). Effective TSA can provide system operators with insightful information on stability statuses and causes under various contingencies and cyber‐attacks. In this study, a real‐time stability condition predictor based on a feedforward neural network is proposed. The conjugate gradient backpropagation algorithm and Fletcher–Reeves updates are used for training, and the Kohonen learning algorithm is utilised to improve the learning process. By real‐time assessment of the network features based on the minimum redundancy maximum relevancy algorithm, the proposed method can successfully predict transient stability and out of step conditions for the network and generators, respectively. Simulation results on the IEEE 39‐bus test system indicate the superiority of the proposed method in terms of accuracy, precision, false positive rate, and true positive rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Smart GridSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207