State Estimation Fusion for Linear Microgrids over an Unreliable Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microgrids should be continuously monitored in order to maintain suitable voltages over time. Microgrids are mainly monitored remotely, and their measurement data transmitted through lossy communication networks are vulnerable to cyberattacks and packet loss. The current study leverages the idea of data fusion to address this problem. Hence, this paper investigates the effects of estimation fusion using various machine-learning (ML) regression methods as data fusion methods by aggregating the distributed Kalman filter (KF)-based state estimates of a linear smart microgrid in order to achieve more accurate and reliable state estimates. This unreliability in measurements is because they are received through a lossy communication network that incorporates packet loss and cyberattacks. In addition to ML regression methods, multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and dependent ordered weighted averaging (DOWA) operators are also employed for further comparisons. The results of simulation on the IEEE 4-bus model validate the effectiveness of the employed ML regression methods through the RMSE, MAE and R-squared indices under the condition of missing and manipulated measurements. In general, the results obtained by the Random Forest regression method were more accurate than those of other methods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".