Determining Disturbance Recovery Conditions by Inverse Sensitivity Minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power systems naturally experience disturbances, some of which can damage equipment and disrupt consumers. It is important to quickly assess the likely consequences of credible disturbances and take preventive action, if necessary. However, assessing the impact of potential disturbances is challenging because many of the influential factors, such as loading patterns, controller settings and load dynamics, are not precisely known. To address this issue, the paper introduces the concept of parameter-space recovery regions. For each disturbance, the corresponding recovery region is the region of parameter space for which the system will recover to the desired operating point. The boundary of the recovery region establishes the separation between parameter values that result in trouble-free recovery and those that incur undesirable non-recovery. The safety margin for a given set of parameter values is defined as the smallest distance (in parameter space) between the given values and the recovery boundary. Novel numerical algorithms with theoretical guarantees are presented for efficiently computing recovery boundaries and safety margins. Unlike prior methods, which tend to be overly conservative and restricted to low dimensional parameter space, these methods compute safety margins to arbitrary user-specified accuracy and do so efficiently in high dimensional parameter space. The efficacy of the methods is demonstrated using the IEEE 39-bus benchmark power system, where safety margins are computed for cases that consider up to 86 parameters, and reveal unexpected safety implications that would not have been observed otherwise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".