MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174557638 · doi:10.3390/en14123623

Deep Learning for High-Impedance Fault Detection: Convolutional Autoencoders

2021· article· en· W3174557638 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutoencoderDeep learningConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Fault detection and isolationUnsupervised learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-impedance faults (HIF) are difficult to detect because of their low current amplitude and highly diverse characteristics. In recent years, machine learning (ML) has been gaining popularity in HIF detection because ML techniques learn patterns from data and successfully detect HIFs. However, as these methods are based on supervised learning, they fail to reliably detect any scenario, fault or non-fault, not present in the training data. Consequently, this paper takes advantage of unsupervised learning and proposes a convolutional autoencoder framework for HIF detection (CAE-HIFD). Contrary to the conventional autoencoders that learn from normal behavior, the convolutional autoencoder (CAE) in CAE-HIFD learns only from the HIF signals eliminating the need for presence of diverse non-HIF scenarios in the CAE training. CAE distinguishes HIFs from non-HIF operating conditions by employing cross-correlation. To discriminate HIFs from transient disturbances such as capacitor or load switching, CAE-HIFD uses kurtosis, a statistical measure of the probability distribution shape. The performance evaluation studies conducted using the IEEE 13-node test feeder indicate that the CAE-HIFD reliably detects HIFs, outperforms the state-of-the-art HIF detection techniques, and is robust against noise.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207