MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic Algorithm-Driven Feature Selection for Total Harmonic Distortion Prediction Using Hybrid Machine Learning

2025· article· W7127454291 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahmoud Mohammadnezhad Kiasari, Hamed H. Aly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFeature selectionMean squared errorResidualGenetic algorithmFeature (linguistics)Principal component analysisTotal harmonic distortionGradient boostingBoosting (machine learning)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the high penetration of renewable energies and the implementation of electronic switches alongside the load non-linearity, Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) has raised concern among engineers due to its direct impact on grid stability. Machine learning has been used to gain the capability of prediction to the system. However, dealing with a high number of features could introduce a significant computational burden and potential model overfitting. This paper introduces a novel Genetic Algorithm (GA) – driven feature selection framework for the THD prediction that effectively can mitigate the mentioned challenges. The approach is to combine evolutionary optimization for feature selection with focusing on a hybrid Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model, that leverages ARIMA’s capability for capturing the temporal trends and linear dependencies alongside XGBoost’s advantageous feature for modelling complex non-linear interactions and residual patterns. For the model performance validation, a comparative analysis against Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) has been done, over real-time power system data, to demonstrate the privilege of the proposed approach, Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.1179 and a Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 0.1489. In comparison, PCA alone resulted in an MAE of 0.1852 and an RMSE of 0.2103, while RFE yielded an MAE of 0.1958 and an RMSE of 0.2241., alongside reducing computational time by approximately 20%. The results confirm an effective solution for accurate THD prediction, enabling proactive power quality management in increasingly complex 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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

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 topicPower Quality and HarmonicsFrench-language works237,207