Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Deep Generative Model-Aided Power System Dynamic State Estimation and Reconstruction with Unknown Control Inputs or Data Distributions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a deep generative model-aided dynamic state estimator that jointly recovers generator states and unknown control inputs, stays accurate under bad phasor measurement unit data and communication losses, and adapts to…

desk verdict Useful engineering bundle for DSE, but the convexity claim behind the robust encoder doesn't hold; fix the optimization story before relying on the robustness guarantee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02928 v1 pith:BUC6TJDH submitted 2025-01-06 eess.SY cs.SY

Jianhua Pei , Ping Wang , Jingyu Wang , Dongyuan Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords dynamicstateestimationpowersystemsdeepgenerativemodelslatentdiffusionmodelunknowncontrolinputsPMUmeasurementanomaliesdomainadaptationcommunicationcontingency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper's central claim is that dynamic state estimation (DSE) in power systems can remain accurate even when the standard prerequisites of model-based DSE are missing: control inputs $P_m$ and $E_{fd}$ are unknown, phasor measurement unit (PMU) data carry gross errors, communication links corrupt or drop half of the transmitted messages, and operating conditions never appeared in training. The method replaces the explicit machine model with an encoder–decoder neural network—a variational autoencoder whose decoder is trained as a Wasserstein generative adversarial network—so only a low-dimensional latent vector must travel to the estimation center. Three add-ons address the failure modes: a robust encoder fine-tuned against adversarial PMU perturbations, a latent diffusion model at the receiver that detects and inpaints corrupted latent codes, and a one-layer adaptor that shifts the latent distribution for one-shot adaptation to new events. On the IEEE 39-bus and NPCC 140-bus systems, the reported errors are lower than Kalman/vector-autoregressive and variational-autoencoder baselines under these stresses, with far less communication and computation than a two-stage diffusion recovery baseline. The paper also notes that the full model is slower than real-time Kalman-filter DSE in some scenarios, so the contribution is framed as robustness and resource reduction rather than raw speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-dimensional latent code $z=E_\phi(B)$, which compresses the system's past states, controls, algebraic inputs, and PMU measurements into a vector that can be transmitted to the estimation center. All four claimed capabilities operate on this code. The variational encoder–decoder makes $z$ carry enough information to reconstruct states and controls; the robust encoder replaces $E_\phi$ with $E_{\phi'}$ trained using the robustness-fidelity loss of Eq. (26) and the entropy-regularized Wasserstein distance $d_{W,\beta}$ of Eq. (27) to keep clean and perturbed latent distributions close; the latent diffusion model applies a consistency-trained denoiser $D_\theta(z_t,t)$, a network trained to map nearby noisy points on the same diffusion trajectory to the same clean latent code, to detect and impute corrupted entries of the received $z$; and the adaptor $g_\omega(z)=\omega^T z+b$ is an affine map inserted between encoder and decoder whose parameters are fit by reconstructing only the known entries $\mathcal{M}$ of $A$. Because everything downstream consumes only $z$, the mechanism compresses the wide-area measurement stream and confines all repair mechanisms to the latent space.

What would settle it

On the IEEE 39-bus test setup of Section IV-C, run a multi-start or randomized adversarial search over the perturbation ball around bad PMU inputs and compare the largest reconstruction error it finds with the error produced by the projected-gradient perturbation used in Algorithm 1; if the stronger search finds a perturbation that raises the reported error metric substantially, the worst-case robustness claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single latent-space generative pipeline can perform dynamic state estimation and reconstruction under four simultaneous stresses that break existing methods: unknown control inputs $P_m$ and $E_{fd}$, bad PMU data (ramp and step errors plus heavy noise), communication failures that corrupt or drop half of the transmitted messages, and unforeseen events such as generator trips that shift the data distribution. The pipeline estimates the six-dimensional generator state $x=[\delta,\Delta\omega,E'_q,E'_d,E''_q,E''_d]^T$ jointly with the control vector $u=[P_m,E_{fd}]^T$ by encoding the measurement-history matrix $B$ into a latent vector $z\sim\mathcal N(\mu,\sigma^2)$ and decoding back to $A$, which contains states, algebraic inputs, controls, and phasor measurements. Robustness to bad PMU data comes from a robust encoder trained with a robustness-fidelity term that penalizes the entropy-regularized Wasserstein distance between the latent distributions of clean and adversarially perturbed inputs; robustness to communication loss comes from a consistency-model denoiser $D_\theta(z_t,t)$ that detects corrupted latent positions and imputes them in two phases; generalization to unseen conditions comes from an affine adaptor $g_\omega(z)=\omega^T z+b$ trained one-shot on known entries of the decoded output. The authors conclude from experiments on both test systems that the approach handles these challenges while transmitting only compressed latent vectors, and they list reduced storage and communication requirements as part of the contribution.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's worst-case robustness guarantee rests on the assumption that a step-by-step search reliably finds the worst-case PMU corruption; if that search gets stuck at lesser errors, the training is not actually minimizing worst-case damage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DSE no longer needs accurate exciter, governor, or stabilizer parameters: the encoder–decoder jointly recovers $P_m$ and $E_{fd}$ from PMU histories, removing a major source of model-based DSE error.
  • Communication and storage costs drop sharply because only the latent vector is transmitted; in the reported tests the proposed scheme sends roughly 1.3–8% as much data as raw PMU streams, depending on whether the adaptor is active.
  • PMU data quality requirements can be relaxed: the robust encoder is designed to keep estimates accurate under ramp and step errors of a few percent and under heavy measurement noise.
  • Centralized DSE can survive substantial communication uncertainty: the two-phase latent diffusion detect-and-impute procedure is claimed to keep estimates accurate when 50% of transmitted latent data is corrupted or unreachable.
  • Learning-based DSE can generalize to events absent from the training set through one-shot latent adaptation, although the authors note the full pipeline is slower than real-time Kalman-based DSE and may miss strict real-time deadlines.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the architecture is a general recipe for cyber-physical estimation with a communication bottleneck: encode measurements into a low-dimensional code, treat the code as the payload, and place adversarial training, diffusion repair, and affine adaptation around the code rather than around the physical model. The same pattern could transfer to distribut
  • The worst-case robustness guarantee is only as strong as the projected-gradient solution of Eq. (24); a natural test is to compare that solution with stronger randomized or black-box worst-case searches on the trained encoder. If those find materially larger reconstruction errors, the robust-fidelity loss is not actually minimizing worst-case error, even if average accuracy remains good.
  • Because the adaptor is affine and trained on known entries only, the framework extends naturally to continual learning: each new operating condition adds a small adaptor without retraining the encoder, decoder, or denoiser. The paper does not yet address how adaptors are identified, stored, or retired as the library of events grows.
  • All validation is on simulated transient data; the compression and latency figures would need re-measurement on field PMU streams with realistic packet loss, and the one-shot adaptor's behavior under measurement noise during adaptation remains untested.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deep generative model-aided dynamic state estimation (DSE) framework for power systems. The architecture combines a VAE-WGAN encoder-decoder for joint estimation of states and unknown control inputs, a robust encoder trained with a projected-gradient-descent (PGD) based worst-case perturbation search, a latent diffusion model (LDM) for detecting and imputing corrupted latent vectors under communication failures, and a lightweight single-layer adaptor for fast adaptation to unforeseen operating conditions. The method is evaluated on the IEEE 39-bus and NPCC 140-bus test systems against UKF-VAR, VAE, and a two-stage diffusion model (TSDM), and is reported to improve accuracy, reduce communication load, and handle bad PMU data, communication uncertainties, and distribution shifts.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to data-driven power system monitoring by combining several generative-model components in a single DSE pipeline. The problem is practically relevant, the experimental scenarios are diverse, and the idea of using a consistency-trained LDM in the latent space to reduce communication and computation burden is interesting. However, the robustness guarantee, which is one of the four headline contributions, rests on an optimization formulation that is not actually convex and on a distribution-divergence formula that appears invalid. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (24)] The manuscript states that Eq. (24) is a 'standard convex optimization problem' solvable by projected gradient descent (PGD). This is not correct: the objective e(δ)=λ||δ||_p − d(Gψ(Eϕ(B)), Gψ(Eϕ(B+δ))) is a composition of neural networks and is generally nonconvex in δ, and the constraint Eϕ(B+δ)∼N(0,I) is not a convex set. Because Algorithm 1 initializes δ0=0 and follows a single PGD trajectory, there is no guarantee that the returned δ solves the maximization in Eq. (23). Consequently, the robustness fidelity term in Eq. (26) is not demonstrably minimizing worst-case reconstruction error, and the paper's claim that the robust encoder 'mitigates malicious measurement errors' is not supported. Please either reformulate the robust training with a convex surrogate or certify the PGD solution (e.g., multiple random restarts, upper/lower bounds), and report the achieved worst-case error in the experiments.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (27)] Eq. (27) does not define a valid entropy-regularized Wasserstein distance. For identical standard normal distributions (μ=μ′=0, σ²=σ′²=1) the expression evaluates to a negative number that depends on β (e.g., approximately −2.23 for β=1) instead of zero. Thus the 'robustness fidelity' term in Eq. (26) is not a divergence between the two latent distributions as claimed. If this quantity is intended as a heuristic regularizer, it should be presented as such; if it is meant to be the entropic Wasserstein distance from [29], the formula needs to be corrected and derived or cited precisely.
  3. [Sections IV-C through IV-E and Table I] The experimental support for the robustness, communication-recovery, and adaptation claims is mostly qualitative. Sections IV-C, IV-D, and IV-E present single-trajectory plots without reporting numerical errors or statistics over the 1250 test events; Table I aggregates DMAPE over the whole 20 s window but does not separate the four scenarios. In particular, the base encoder-decoder (Proposed W/o LDM/Adaptor) shows only a small improvement over VAE in Table I (8.26% vs. 8.33% on the 39-bus system), so the headline gains come from components whose activation thresholds (T in Algorithm 2) and training details are not fully specified. Please provide quantitative per-scenario errors, confidence intervals or event-level statistics, and the threshold and hyperparameter values used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typos and inconsistent spellings (e.g., 'synchronpus', 'intertia', 'Guassian', 'sovled', 'parameterizd', 'adapatation', 'utlize'); please proofread carefully.
  2. [Section IV-A] Clarify that generator-shedding events are excluded from training and used only in the test set, which is the basis for the 'unforeseen events' claim in Section IV-E.
  3. [Table I] Specify whether the 'Proposed Method (W/ Adaptor)' row includes LDM as well, and explain why the compression ratio increases to 8.00% and 4.00% when the adaptor is used.
  4. [Algorithm 1] The stopping criterion 'until Converged' is not defined; specify the maximum number of iterations or a tolerance for the inner PGD loop.
  5. [Section IV-F, Eq. (36)] Define the range over which x_max and x_min are computed (per trajectory, per variable, or over the whole test set) so that the DMAPE values in Table I are reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claims rest on empirical training and evaluation against external baselines, not on self-cited or definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical machine-learning pipeline: a VAE-WGAN encoder-decoder is trained on simulated power-system histories to estimate states and unknown control inputs; a robust encoder is adversarially fine-tuned; an LDM is trained for latent-space denoising/imputation; and a lightweight adaptor performs one-shot latent-space adaptation. None of these steps reduces to its inputs by construction. The unknown-control-input estimator is a learned mapping from historical data, not a quantity defined in terms of the target outputs. The adaptor's loss (Eq. 35) fits only to known data positions (algebraic inputs Y and measurements Z), not to the state variables being estimated, so it is self-supervised adaptation rather than circular prediction. The LDM two-phase recovery is standard denoising/imputation whose training objective (Eq. 33) is a consistency-model loss, not a renamed version of the evaluation metric. The robust encoder uses PGD to search for adversarial perturbations and then fine-tunes the encoder; even though the claim that Eq. (24) is a 'standard convex optimization problem' is questionable because the neural-network-composed objective is generally nonconvex, this is an optimization/correctness concern, not circularity. The paper cites several prior works by the same authors ([8], [22], [24], [26], [31]), but these are used as background motivation or as comparison baselines, not as load-bearing justifications for the central results, and none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives. The method is benchmarked against external baselines (UKF-VAR [14], VAE [21], TSDM [31]) with quantitative error metrics, so the empirical claims are independently testable. No equation in the paper is shown to equal another by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a standard learned-generator assumption: that historical PMU data and states are sufficient to train an encoder-decoder that can estimate states and unknown control inputs, and that the latent space is smooth enough for the robust encoder and adaptor to correct anomalies. The listed free parameters are hand-tuned and no sensitivity analysis is provided. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_phi = not reported (set between 0 and 1)
    Encoder loss balance hyperparameter in Eqs. (22) and (26). It weights prior fidelity against estimation fidelity and robustness fidelity; no sensitivity analysis or tuning details are given.
  • lambda = not reported
    Penalty coefficient in the robust encoder optimization, Eq. (24), balancing perturbation norm against reconstruction error; chosen by hand.
  • beta = not reported
    Coupling parameter in the entropy-regularized Wasserstein distance dW,beta, Eq. (27), controlling the robustness fidelity term.
  • detection threshold T = not reported
    Threshold in Algorithm 2 to flag corrupted latent positions; directly controls false alarm and missed detection rates in communication recovery.
  • LDM schedule length m = 50
    Truncated diffusion schedule length m=50 to reduce training cost; affects the granularity of denoising and the reconstruction quality.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The discrete-time generator model Eq. (14)-(15) assumes Gaussian process and measurement noises with known covariance matrices Q and R, and that unknown control inputs enter the state equation linearly through a known input matrix G_i.
    Invoked in the problem formulation, Section II-B, Eq. (14)-(16). The entire DSE task is defined under this model; violations would change what the learned encoder-decoder is fitting.
  • domain assumption The latent vector z produced by the encoder follows a Gaussian distribution N(mu, sigma^2), enabling reparameterization and KL-based losses.
    Used in Eqs. (21)-(22) for the VAE-WGAN encoder training and in the constraint E_phi(B+delta) ~ N(0,I) in Eq. (23). This is a modeling choice, not a proven property of the data.
  • standard math WGAN, ELBO, and diffusion score-matching theory are taken as valid building blocks.
    The method relies on established results for Wasserstein GANs (Eq. 20), variational autoencoders (Eq. 21), and consistency models/diffusion SDEs (Eqs. 28-33), cited to [29] and [30].
  • ad hoc to paper The worst-case perturbation delta in Eq. (23) can be found by solving Eq. (24) as a convex optimization problem via projected gradient descent.
    This is a load-bearing premise for the robust encoder's guarantee. The objective e(delta) includes G_psi(E_phi(B+delta)), a composition of neural networks, which is generally nonconvex, so the statement in Section III-B that Eq. (24) is 'standard convex optimization' is unsupported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Generative Model-Aided Power System Dynamic State Estimation and Reconstruction with Unknown Control Inputs or Data Distributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUC6TJDH

@misc{pith2026250102928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Generative Model-Aided Power System Dynamic State Estimation and Reconstruction with Unknown Control Inputs or Data Distributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUC6TJDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02928}
}
read the original abstract

Fast and robust dynamic state estimation (DSE) is essential for accurately capturing the internal dynamic processes of power systems, and it serves as the foundation for reliably implementing real-time dynamic modeling, monitoring, and control applications. Nonetheless, on one hand, traditional DSE methods based on Kalman filtering or particle filtering have high accuracy requirements for system parameters, control inputs, phasor measurement unit (PMU) data, and centralized DSE communication. Consequently, these methods often face accuracy bottlenecks when dealing with structural or system process errors, unknown control vectors, PMU anomalies, and communication contingencies. On the other hand, deep learning-aided DSE, while parameter-free, often suffers from generalization issues under unforeseen operating conditions. To address these challenges, this paper proposes an effective approach that leverages deep generative models from AI-generated content (AIGC) to assist DSE. The proposed approach employs an encoder-decoder architecture to estimate unknown control input variables, a robust encoder to mitigate the impact of bad PMU data, and latent diffusion model to address communication issues in centralized DSE. Additionally, a lightweight adaptor is designed to quickly adjust the latent vector distribution. Extensive experimental results on the IEEE 39-bus system and the NPCC 140-bus system demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed method in addressing DSE modeling imperfection, measurement uncertainties, communication contingencies, and unknown distribution challenges, while also proving its ability to reduce data storage and communication resource requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The position and role of decentralized DSE in power systems, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The control block diagram of the utilized IEEEX1 exciter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The enhanced two-phase latent diffusion model for dynamic state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The deployment diagram of the deep generative model-aided data-driven DSE, which integrates both centralized and decentralized approaches in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint state and control variable estimation results for Generator 1 during a short-circuit fault event in the IEEE 39-bus system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Joint state and control variable estimation results for Generator 30 during a load disturbance event in the NPCC 140-bus system.. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The estimated results for power angle δ, rotor speed ω, and transient voltage E′ in the test system under bad PMU data or communication uncertainty. to the poor quality of the latent bottleneck z. However, after processing with LDM, the decoded state variable estimates…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The estimated results for power angle, rotor speed, and transient voltage in the test system under communication uncertainty and unknown distributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Adversarially ro- bust representations with smooth encoders,

    T. Cemgil, S. Ghaisas, K. D. Dvijotham, and P. Kohli, “Adversarially ro- bust representations with smooth encoders,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Roles of dynamic state estimation in power system modeling, monitoring and operation,

    J. Zhao et al. , “Roles of dynamic state estimation in power system modeling, monitoring and operation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2462–2472, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Dynamic state estimation for power system control and protection,

    Y . Liu et al. , “Dynamic state estimation for power system control and protection,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 5909–5921, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Power system dynamic state estimation: Motivations, definitions, methodologies, and future work,

    J. Zhao et al. , “Power system dynamic state estimation: Motivations, definitions, methodologies, and future work,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 3188–3198, 2019

    2019

  5. [4]

    Dynamic state estimation in power system by applying the extended kalman filter with unknown inputs to phasor measurements,

    E. Ghahremani and I. Kamwa, “Dynamic state estimation in power system by applying the extended kalman filter with unknown inputs to phasor measurements,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2556–2566, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Dynamic state estimation for multi-machine power system by unscented kalman filter with enhanced numerical stability,

    J. Qi, K. Sun, J. Wang, and H. Liu, “Dynamic state estimation for multi-machine power system by unscented kalman filter with enhanced numerical stability,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1184– 1196, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Robust particle filter design with an application to power system state estimation,

    A. H. Abolmasoumi, A. Farahani, and L. Mili, “Robust particle filter design with an application to power system state estimation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Robust unscented kalman filter for power system dynamic state estimation with unknown noise statistics,

    J. Zhao and L. Mili, “Robust unscented kalman filter for power system dynamic state estimation with unknown noise statistics,” IEEE Transac- tions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1215–1224, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Precise recovery of corrupted synchrophasors based on autoregressive bayesian low-rank factorization and adaptive k-medoids clustering,

    J. Pei, J. Wang, Z. Wang, and D. Shi, “Precise recovery of corrupted synchrophasors based on autoregressive bayesian low-rank factorization and adaptive k-medoids clustering,” IEEE Transactions on Power Sys- tems, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5834–5848, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    A constrained optimization approach to dynamic state estimation for power systems including pmu and missing measurements,

    L. Hu, Z. Wang, I. Rahman, and X. Liu, “A constrained optimization approach to dynamic state estimation for power systems including pmu and missing measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 703–710, 2015

    2015

  3. [10]

    A robust iterated extended kalman filter for power system dynamic state estimation,

    J. Zhao, M. Netto, and L. Mili, “A robust iterated extended kalman filter for power system dynamic state estimation,” IEEE transactions on power systems , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3205–3216, 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    Constrained robust unscented kalman filter for generalized dynamic state estimation,

    J. Zhao, L. Mili, and A. G ´omez-Exp´osito, “Constrained robust unscented kalman filter for generalized dynamic state estimation,” IEEE Transac- tions on Power Systems , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 3637–3646, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    A robust data-driven koopman kalman filter for power systems dynamic state estimation,

    M. Netto and L. Mili, “A robust data-driven koopman kalman filter for power systems dynamic state estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 7228–7237, 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    Risk mitigation for dynamic state estimation against cyber attacks and unknown inputs,

    A. F. Taha, J. Qi, J. Wang, and J. H. Panchal, “Risk mitigation for dynamic state estimation against cyber attacks and unknown inputs,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 886–899, 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Correlation-aided robust decentralized dynamic state estimation of power systems with unknown control inputs,

    J. Zhao et al. , “Correlation-aided robust decentralized dynamic state estimation of power systems with unknown control inputs,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 2443–2451, 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    Event-trigger particle filter for smart grids with limited communication bandwidth infrastructure,

    X. Liu et al. , “Event-trigger particle filter for smart grids with limited communication bandwidth infrastructure,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 6918–6928, 2017

    2017

  9. [16]

    Event-trigger heterogeneous nonlinear filter for wide-area measurement systems in power grid,

    S. Li et al. , “Event-trigger heterogeneous nonlinear filter for wide-area measurement systems in power grid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2752–2764, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    An unscented particle filtering approach to decentralized dynamic state estimation for dfig wind turbines in multi-area power systems,

    S. S. Yu, J. Guo, T. K. Chau, T. Fernando, H. H.-C. Iu, and H. Trinh, “An unscented particle filtering approach to decentralized dynamic state estimation for dfig wind turbines in multi-area power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2670–2682, 2020

    2020

  11. [18]

    Data-driven adaptive unscented kalman filter for time-varying inertia and damping estimation of utility-scale ibrs considering current limiter,

    B. Tan and J. Zhao, “Data-driven adaptive unscented kalman filter for time-varying inertia and damping estimation of utility-scale ibrs considering current limiter,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 7331–7345, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Esti- mation of rotor angles of synchronous machines using artificial neural networks and local pmu-based quantities,

    A. Del Angel, P. Geurts, D. Ernst, M. Glavic, and L. Wehenkel, “Esti- mation of rotor angles of synchronous machines using artificial neural networks and local pmu-based quantities,” Neurocomputing, vol. 70, no. 16-18, pp. 2668–2678, 2007

    2007

  13. [20]

    Dynamic state estimation for the advanced brake system of electric vehicles by using deep recurrent neural networks,

    Y . Xing and C. Lv, “Dynamic state estimation for the advanced brake system of electric vehicles by using deep recurrent neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 9536– 9547, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Power plant model parameter calibration using conditional variational autoencoder,

    S. R. Khazeiynasab, J. Zhao, I. Batarseh, and B. Tan, “Power plant model parameter calibration using conditional variational autoencoder,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1642–1652, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Training a dynamic neural network to detect false data injection attacks under multiple unforeseen operating conditions,

    D. Hu, S. Wu, J. Wang, and D. Shi, “Training a dynamic neural network to detect false data injection attacks under multiple unforeseen operating conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 3248– 3261, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Spatio-temporal generative adversarial network based power distribution network state estimation with multiple time-scale measurements,

    Y . Liu, Y . Wang, and Q. Yang, “Spatio-temporal generative adversarial network based power distribution network state estimation with multiple time-scale measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 9790–9797, 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    Latent diffusion model-enabled real-time semantic communication considering seman- tic ambiguities and channel noises,

    J. Pei, C. Feng, P. Wang, H. Tabassum, and D. Shi, “Latent diffusion model-enabled real-time semantic communication considering seman- tic ambiguities and channel noises,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06644 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Hybrid llm-ddqn based 11 joint optimization of v2i communication and autonomous driving,

    Z. Yan, H. Zhou, H. Tabassum, and X. Liu, “Hybrid llm-ddqn based 11 joint optimization of v2i communication and autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08854, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Robust fast pmu measurement recovery enhanced by randomized singular value and sequential tucker decomposition,

    J. Pei, Z. Wang, J. Wang, and D. Shi, “Robust fast pmu measurement recovery enhanced by randomized singular value and sequential tucker decomposition,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution , vol. 16, no. 16, pp. 3267–3281, 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    Hybrid symbolic-numeric framework for power system modeling and analysis,

    H. Cui, F. Li, and K. Tomsovic, “Hybrid symbolic-numeric framework for power system modeling and analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1373–1384, 2020

    2020

  21. [28]

    Stability and convergence of a randomized model predictive control strategy,

    D. W. M. Veldman, A. Borkowski, and E. Zuazua, “Stability and convergence of a randomized model predictive control strategy,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 6253–6260, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,

    T. Karras, M. Aittala, T. Aila, and S. Laine, “Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,” Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 26 565–26 577, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Detection and imputation-based two-stage denoising diffusion power system measurement recovery under cyber-physical uncertainties,

    J. Pei, J. Wang, D. Shi, and P. Wang, “Detection and imputation-based two-stage denoising diffusion power system measurement recovery under cyber-physical uncertainties,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 5965–5980, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.