N − k Static Security Assessment for Power Transmission System Planning Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a methodology for static security assessment of transmission network planning using machine learning (ML). The objective is to accelerate the probabilistic risk assessment of the Hydro-Quebec (HQ) TransÉnergie transmission grid. The model takes the expected power supply and the status of the elements in a N−k contingency scenario as inputs. The output is the reliability metric Expecting Load Shedding Cost (ELSC). To train and test the regression model, stochastic data are performed, resulting in a set of N−k and k=1,2,3 contingency scenarios used as inputs. Subsequently, the output is computed for each scenario by performing load shedding using an optimal power flow algorithm, with the objective function of minimizing ELSC. Experimental results on the well-known IEEE-39 bus test system and PEGASE-1354 system demonstrate the potential of the proposed methodology in generalizing ELSC during an N−k contingency. For up to k=3 the coefficient of determination R2 obtained was close to 98% for both case studies, achieving a speed-up of over four orders of magnitude with the use of a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP). This approach and its results have not been addressed in the literature, making this methodology a contribution to the state of the art.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".