Deep learning-based electricity theft prediction in non-smart grid environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In developing countries, smart grids are nonexistent, and electricity theft significantly hampers power supply. This research introduces a lightweight deep-learning model using monthly customer readings as input data. By employing careful direct and indirect feature engineering techniques, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA), t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection), and resampling methods such as Random-Under-Sampler (RUS), Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE), and Random-Over-Sampler (ROS), an effective solution is proposed. Previous studies indicate that models achieve high precision, recall, and F1 score for the non-theft (0) class, but perform poorly, even achieving 0 %, for the theft (1) class. Through parameter tuning and employing Random-Over-Sampler (ROS), significant improvements in accuracy, precision (89 %), recall (94 %), and F1 score (91 %) for the theft (1) class are achieved. The results demonstrate that the proposed model outperforms existing methods, showcasing its efficacy in detecting electricity theft in non-smart grid environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".