MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416975561 · doi:10.1049/cps2.70035

An Early Stage Failure Prediction Mechanism in Smart Grid Networks

2025· article· en· W4416975561 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Salehpour, Irfan Al‐Anbagi, Kin‐Choong Yow, Xiaolin Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Cyber-Physical Systems Theory & Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersMitacs
KeywordsSmart gridComponent (thermodynamics)Cascading failureMechanism (biology)Electric power systemBoosting (machine learning)Construct (python library)GridPower grid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Smart grid systems, as modern cyber‐physical systems (CPS), introduce new interdependencies between power and communication components that can create new security challenges. One potential challenge that may arise is cascading failures resulting from cyber‐attacks or the failure of a component that needs to be detected in a timely manner. In this paper, we propose a novel early‐stage failure prediction (ESFP) mechanism that applies machine learning (ML) algorithms to enhance the security of smart grid systems. We use a realistic model to generate a dataset for training ML algorithms and develop a mechanism to predict the state of a system's components in the early stages before failures propagate in the system. ESFP can predict the final state of each power system component with respect to its initial failures. We apply the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm and examine the features of both the communication and power networks that provide high accuracy in predicting failures. We develop a new data generation procedure to construct a dataset containing electrical and network features and characteristics for training ML algorithms. ESFP also identifies the location of the initial failures as this allows for further protection plans and decisions. We evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mechanism through an analysis conducted on an IEEE 118‐bus system. The proposed mechanism achieves 99.4% prediction accuracy in random attacks using the XGBoost algorithm. We also improve the time of the XGBoost algorithm by 75% by combining an unsupervised ML algorithm with this algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Cyber-Physical Systems Theory & ApplicationsSame topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207