MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198435119 · doi:10.1109/tetci.2021.3104330

Intelligent Decision Support and Fusion Models for Fault Detection and Location in Power Grids

2021· article· en· W3198435119 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Hassani, Roozbeh Razavi‐Far, Mehrdad Saif, Jafar Zarei, Frede Blaabjerg

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Fault (geology)Binary decision diagramFalse alarmFault detection and isolationFuzzy logicReal-time computingElectric power systemSupport vector machineModular designComputational intelligenceData miningArtificial intelligencePower (physics)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational intelligence-based diagnostic frameworks have emerged as rapidly evolving but highly efficient approaches for diagnosing faults in power grids. This work aims to build a diagnostic framework by resorting to computational intelligence techniques to improve decision-making and diagnostic accuracy. This diagnostic framework has three modules for signal processing, fault detection, and location. The signal-processing module uses the variational mode decomposition technique to extract informative time-frequency features from the voltage and frequency signals. Voltage features are then fed into the fault detection module to train a set of modular support vector machines that are used for monitoring the binary state of each node in the power grid. Once a faulty state on a node is detected, it activates the third module for identifying fault location. This module benefits from a novel zSlices-based general type-2 fuzzy fusion model for the sake of identifying the fault type as well as mitigating the false alarm rate. The exact location of the fault is then determined through a fuzzy decision support system that is equipped with a recommendation mechanism for the sake of consensus reaching. Various scenarios are simulated on the IEEE 39-bus system and on an experimental setup of a Three-Bus Two-Line transmission system, where the attained results verify the applicability, efficiency, and robustness of the proposed framework.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational IntelligenceSame topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207