MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412871247 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2025.3590518

HMM-Based Feature Extraction and Machine Learning Methods for Event Detection and Classification in Microgrids

2025· article· en· W4412871247 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Sam Daliri, Mohadese Dejagah, Hamid Reza Baghaee, Hossein Askarian Abyaneh, Alireza Bakhshai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature extractionHidden Markov modelArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Event (particle physics)Feature (linguistics)Machine learningSupport vector machineSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing penetration of inverter-based distributed generation (DG) into power grids improves access to electricity and provides a significant possibility for decarbonization. However, this can result in unexpected events and protection challenges that can threaten the resilience and stability of the entire power grid. One approach to address protection challenges is to detect events accurately. This study proposes a new feature extraction approach by the HMM to extract informative features from event signals. These extracted features are used by XGBoost to detect and classify the type and phase of a wide range of events, including both fault and non-fault events. The case study utilizes various simulated events of the IEEE 34-bus system. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the proposed model is validated using real-world experimental data obtained from a relay tester device. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated using various metrics under realistic scenarios, including an imbalanced dataset and the presence of different levels of noise and missing data. The results demonstrate that combining HMM for feature extraction with XGBoost as a classifier offers an interpretable and robust approach, achieving reliable performance with high accuracy as well as timely detection and classification of event types and phases compared to state-of-the-art techniques. All codes are available at: <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/hassan-sam-daliri/HMMXGB.git</uri>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207