Real-Time Cascade Mitigation in Power Systems Using Influence Graph Improved by Reinforcement Learning

Chong Zhong; Kai Zhou; Yifu Wu; Youbiao He

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Real-Time Cascade Mitigation in Power Systems Using Influence Graph Improved by Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Proactive disconnection of a single transmission line per cascade generation, selected by a reinforcement-learning policy that begins as a do-nothing policy, reduces simulated cascading risk on 14-bus and 118-bus test systems.

desk verdict A coherent RL proof-of-concept for cascade mitigation in a simplified simulator, but the headline claim overreaches because all evidence comes from the same model used for training. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08893 v1 pith:E5IFM7ZB submitted 2025-06-10 physics.soc-ph cs.LGphysics.data-an

Kai Zhou , Youbiao He , Chong Zhong , Yifu Wu This is my paper

classification physics.soc-phcs.LGphysics.data-an

keywords cascadingoutagespowersystemmitigationMarkovdecisionprocessreinforcementlearninginfluencegraphproactivelinedisconnectioncontingencymotifspolicygradient

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

The paper sets out to show that real-time mitigation of cascading blackouts can be modeled as a Markov decision process and solved with deep reinforcement learning, yielding a policy that intentionally disconnects one transmission line at each cascade generation to stop the outage propagation. It extends influence-graph models by letting the state include all previous line outages and each line's relative flow, rather than only the outages in the latest generation, and it introduces a do-nothing action so the agent intervenes conservatively. Trained with a policy-gradient method initialized as a pure do-nothing policy and with invalid actions masked, the agent reduces the negative return (cascading risk) compared with no intervention on the standard 14-bus and 118-bus test systems. The learned behavior is conservative: do-nothing is the most frequent action, and proactive disconnections concentrate on a small subset of lines that appear repeatedly as critical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the MDP formulation and its solver. The state $S_t=[l_1,\ldots,l_n,\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_n]$ tracks which lines are connected and each line's flow as a fraction of its rating, a wider view than the influence graph's per-generation outage sets. The action space is do-nothing plus $n$ single-line disconnections, and the policy is a multilayer perceptron mapping states to a softmax over actions. Two adaptations carry the argument: a pre-trained do-nothing policy initializes the learner so that any improvement is measured against the unmitigated cascade, and invalid actions (disconnecting an already-outaged line) are masked by replacing their logits with a large negative value, which yields a valid policy gradient. The reward in equation (5) combines penalties for propagation, new outages via $100(1-e^{-0.01N_{g,t}})$, load shedding, and an action cost $\alpha$, with a large $-100$ for non-converging power flow.

What would settle it

Run the agent's most frequent disconnection actions on a higher-fidelity simulation (or against historical outage records) for the same initial contingencies; if proactive disconnections do not reduce the number of generations, line outages, or load shed relative to do-nothing, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that proactive single-line disconnection, chosen by a reinforcement-learning agent, can mitigate cascading risk without deteriorating system conditions, and that the policy remains conservative because it usually does nothing. The cascade is formulated as an MDP whose state records the connectivity and relative active-power flow of every line, and whose action space is do-nothing or disconnecting one line. The reward accumulates negative penalties for each additional generation, each new line outage, load shedding, non-converged power flow, and any action taken, so maximizing the total return is equivalent to minimizing cascading risk. In 1000 random cascades on both the 14-bus and 118-bus systems, the trained agent shifts the survival function of negative returns downward compared with no intervention, with the strongest reductions in the number of cascade generations and line outages.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the modified cascade simulator's overload-trip probabilities and island redispatch logic faithfully representing real cascading outages; if those simulated dynamics are wrong, the learned disconnection policy has no guaranteed real-world benefit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Operators could deploy the learned policy as a real-time advisory tool, with the paper's own recommendation that high-stakes actions pass a fast validation simulation first.
The concentration of actions on a small line subset means monitoring and automated protection can be targeted at those lines, which is cost-effective in practice.
Initializing reinforcement learning with a do-nothing policy and masking invalid actions shortens training time, making the approach more feasible on larger systems.
The reward design, which weights generation count, line outages, and load shedding with comparable scales, prevents the agent from improving one risk metric at the expense of another.

Reading between the lines

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

The same pre-training plus action-masking recipe is a generic speedup for policy-gradient learning with large invalid-action spaces, so it may transfer to other power-system control tasks beyond line disconnection.
Because the action set is limited to one line per generation, adding controlled load shedding or generation redispatch could yield larger risk reductions, though the paper leaves this untested.
If the cascade simulator were replaced by a higher-fidelity dynamic model, the MDP scaffolding should still work but the identity of the critical lines could change, which is a testable consequence of rerunning the training loop.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The paper is a solid proof-of-concept: it shows that PPO with a pre-trained do-nothing policy and invalid-action masking can learn to proactively disconnect lines and reduce negative returns in the modified Eppstein–Hines simulator, on 14-bus and 118-bus systems. The MDP formulation with continuous line-flow features, varying generation/load, and a do-nothing action is a genuine extension over the cited RL mitigation work. The 5-bus DP example is a clean sanity check, and the reward design is transparent, with a worked example showing why early stopping is preferred.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note identifies. Every piece of numerical evidence comes from the same simulator used to train the policy, and the reward explicitly penalizes generations, line outages, load shedding, and failures. So the reported improvements are, to a real extent, a designed consequence of the reward. The trip rules (beta_i = 1 for rho >= 1.5, etc.) and island redispatch logic are very simple, and there is no independent simulator or historical outage data to test whether the learned policy transfers. The paper itself says the cascade model 'can easily be replaced' and that calibration with historical data is future work. That means the abstract's general claim about proactive line disconnections reducing cascading risk overreaches. The defensible claim is 'in this simulator, with this reward, the agent reduces risk.' There are also smaller issues: only single-seed learning curves, no comparison to random or heuristic disconnection baselines, and no code release. These are fixable and would materially strengthen the evidence.

That said, the paper is not broken. The MDP/PPO machinery is coherent, the novelty is real though modest, and the authors are honest about limitations. The central finding within the simulation holds up. I'd send this to peer review: a good referee can push for baselines, multiple seeds, and at least one independent cascade model or historical calibration. For a reading group, it's a useful example of RL for power-system emergency control, but I'd frame the results as simulator-specific. I would not cite it in my own work as evidence for real-world mitigation; it's a proof-of-concept.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an MDP formulation for real-time mitigation of cascading outages, in which the state includes line statuses and relative line flows, the action set consists of deliberate single-line disconnections plus a do-nothing action, and the reward penalizes continuation, new line outages, load shedding, and proactive action. The MDP is solved with PPO, initialized with a pre-trained do-nothing policy and with invalid-action masking, and evaluated in a modified Eppstein-Hines cascading simulator on the IEEE 14-bus and 118-bus systems. The paper also includes a dynamic-programming solution of a small 5-bus example. The reported results are survival functions of negative returns before and after mitigation, learning curves comparing the proposed PPO variant with standard PPO, and a frequency analysis of the selected disconnection actions.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the work would be a useful step toward fast, conservative cascade mitigation: it demonstrates that a sequential decision-making formulation with a do-nothing action can be trained with policy-gradient methods on a cascading-failure simulator, and it identifies a small subset of frequently selected lines that could inform operator monitoring. The paper has several strengths: the 5-bus dynamic-programming example gives an exact benchmark for the MDP idea; the use of one-week load and generation curves and N-k contingency motifs addresses operational uncertainty; and the 1000-cascade survival curves provide more information than a single aggregate number. However, the central claim is currently established only inside the same simplified simulator used for training, and the comparison set is too narrow to support the general conclusion that proactive line disconnections reduce real cascading risk.

major comments (5)

[Section III, Eq. (5), Figs. 8-11] The claim that proactive line disconnections reduce cascading risk is tested only in the same modified Eppstein-Hines simulator used to train the policy, and the reward in Eq. (5) directly penalizes the quantities plotted in Figs. 8-11: number of generations, number of new line outages, and load shedding. The reported improvement is therefore partly a designed consequence of the reward rather than independent evidence about cascade mitigation. The paper should either validate the learned policy in an independently implemented cascade model or against historical outage data, or explicitly restrict the headline claim to the simulation model.
[Figs. 8-11] No baseline is reported against random line disconnection or against a simple heuristic such as disconnecting the most overloaded line. Since the action space contains only single-line disconnections, a policy that disconnects a line arbitrarily may already reduce cascade size in this simulator. Without such a baseline, the experiments do not establish that the learned policy is better than generic proactive intervention.
[Fig. 9 and Fig. 12] The convergence-speed comparison and the action-frequency analysis appear to be based on a single training run: no repeated-seed statistics or confidence intervals are provided for the learning curves, and Fig. 12 reports standard deviations only across test batches of a single trained agent. The claim that the proposed method 'converges faster' requires multiple independent training seeds, and the 'critical lines' observation needs a statistical criterion across those seeds.
[Section V.C and Section VI.B] For the 118-bus case, the text says initial outages are sampled from N-k contingency motifs plus random N-k, but it does not specify the relative sampling weights, the number of motifs, or how 'all possible N−k' is interpreted when k=4 on a 118-bus network. If the evaluation scenarios are drawn from the same motif distribution used in training, the reported improvement and the set of frequently selected lines may be artifacts of that distribution. The contingency-list construction and its effect on the results should be documented and tested for sensitivity.
[Section III, step 3] The island redispatch logic is described only qualitatively ('make generators ramp up or down to reach power balance as closely as possible') and is a dominant mechanism in the simulator because it determines load shedding whenever islands form. The lack of a precise specification, including the ramp limits and the load-shedding rule, prevents reproduction and makes it difficult to judge whether the learned policy exploits a particular redispatch implementation rather than a general property of cascading systems.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (12)] Replacing invalid-action logits by a finite large negative number M does not make their gradients exactly zero unless M is taken to -infinity; please state the value of M and clarify that the zero-gradient statement holds in the limit or is enforced separately.
[Fig. 5] The caption labels the 118-bus panel as '(c)' while the figure contains only panels (a) and (b); this appears to be a typo.
[Section VI.A] The sentence '1000 cascades with randomly selected initial outages, loads and initial outages' repeats 'initial outages'; presumably 'loads, generation, and initial outages' is intended.
[Section IV] The 5-bus dynamic-programming example does not report the value of the action penalty α used in the rewards, so the stated optimal policy cannot be reproduced.
[Section VII and Fig. 12] The statement that certain lines 'consistently emerge' as critical is supported only by the frequency in one trained agent; please report the number of independent training runs and the criterion used to call a line critical.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MDP/PPO derivation is self-contained; same-simulator evaluation is an external-validity limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the MDP formulation (Sec. II), the PPO solver with pretrained do-nothing initialization and invalid-action masking (Sec. V), and evaluation on IEEE 14/118-bus systems in the modified Eppstein-Hines simulator (Secs. III, VI). No stage defines its output in terms of its claimed prediction. The reward (Eq. 5) and the reported 'cascading risk' are, by the paper's own definitions, the same quantity, so the observed improvement in negative return is partly a check that the policy optimized its objective; but this is a standard RL evaluation and not a hidden fit — the policy is not fitted to the test cascades, and the 1000-cascade evaluation uses random initial states unseen during training. The self-citations ([7] for the Markov-chain cascade representation, [31] for contingency motifs) are framing or input-distribution choices, not load-bearing evidence for the mitigation claim; the method does not depend on their correctness. The same-simulator-only validation is a genuine external-validity risk, acknowledged by the authors ('the power system model can be refined and calibrated using historical outage data'), but that is a modeling assumption, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on a Markovian state representation, a simplified cascade simulator, and a hand-designed reward. The reward constants are not fitted to data but are chosen ad hoc, and the simulator fidelity is a domain assumption that is not validated against real outages. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Action penalty alpha = chosen from (0, 0.99), exact value not reported
Introduced in Eq. (5) to penalize any proactive disconnection, favoring the do-nothing action; the value is hand-chosen and not fitted to data.
Power flow failure penalty = -100
Large negative reward assigned when the power flow solver fails, introduced in Eq. (5); hand-chosen.
Per-generation penalty = -1
Reward for each propagation step (1[St != ST]) in Eq. (5); hand-chosen to weight cascade length.
Line-outage exponential rate = 0.01
Scale in -100(1 - exp(-0.01 N_{g,t})) in Eq. (5); hand-chosen so the typical impact is less than 1.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Cascade evolution is Markovian with state S_t = [line statuses, line flow percentages]
Section II defines S_t and transition p(S_t | S_{t-1}, A_{t-1}); the state is assumed sufficient for decision-making.
domain assumption The modified Eppstein-Hines cascade model accurately captures cascade propagation
Section III describes the simulator with overload tripping probabilities and island balancing; the entire RL training and evaluation depend on this model.
ad hoc to paper The reward function in Eq. (5) is a valid proxy for cascading risk
The weighted combination of generations, line outages, load shedding, and failure penalty is chosen by the authors and used both for training and evaluation.
domain assumption One-week load and generation curves adequately represent operational uncertainty
Section VI uses one week of 5-minute resolution curves for both test cases; the dataset is not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Cascade Mitigation in Power Systems Using Influence Graph Improved by Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5IFM7ZB

@misc{pith2026250608893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Cascade Mitigation in Power Systems Using Influence Graph Improved by Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5IFM7ZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08893}
}

read the original abstract

Despite high reliability, modern power systems with growing renewable penetration face an increasing risk of cascading outages. Real-time cascade mitigation requires fast, complex operational decisions under uncertainty. In this work, we extend the influence graph into a Markov decision process model (MDP) for real-time mitigation of cascading outages in power transmission systems, accounting for uncertainties in generation, load, and initial contingencies. The MDP includes a do-nothing action to allow for conservative decision-making and is solved using reinforcement learning. We present a policy gradient learning algorithm initialized with a policy corresponding to the unmitigated case and designed to handle invalid actions. The proposed learning method converges faster than the conventional algorithm. Through careful reward design, we learn a policy that takes conservative actions without deteriorating system conditions. The model is validated on the IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 118-bus systems. The results show that proactive line disconnections can effectively reduce cascading risk, and certain lines consistently emerge as critical in mitigating cascade propagation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08893 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The simulation flowchart of power system cascading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** DFS with backtracking used to derive MDP dynamics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The reinforcement learning framework with a pretrained policy and masking of invalid actions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Topologies of the test cases and detailed cascades. Blue dashed lines are outages, red dashed lines are disconnected by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Generation and load curves at two buses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Learning curves for the 118-bus case using PPO-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The survival function for total negative rewards using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Survival functions for three cascade size metrics using 1000 cascades with random initial states for IEEE 118-bus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The relative frequency of actions and their standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Initial review of methods for cascading failure analysis in electric power transmission systems,

R. Baldick, B. Chowdhury, I. Dobsonet al., “Initial review of methods for cascading failure analysis in electric power transmission systems,” inIEEE PES General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Jul. 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Large blackouts in North America: Historical trends and policy implications,

P. Hines, J. Apt, and S. Talukdar, “Large blackouts in North America: Historical trends and policy implications,”Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 5249–5259, Dec. 2009

work page 2009
[3]

North American blackout time series statistics and implications for blackout risk,

B. A. Carreras, D. E. Newman, and I. Dobson, “North American blackout time series statistics and implications for blackout risk,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4406–4414, Nov. 2016

work page 2016
[4]

Observed acceleration of cascading outages,

M. Noebels, I. Dobson, and M. Panteli, “Observed acceleration of cascading outages,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 3821–3824, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Cascading power outages propagate locally in an influence graph that is not the actual grid topology,

P. D. Hines, I. Dobson, and P. Rezaei, “Cascading power outages propagate locally in an influence graph that is not the actual grid topology,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 958–967, Mar. 2017

work page 2017
[6]

An interaction model for simulation and mitigation of cascading failures,

J. Qi, K. Sun, and S. Mei, “An interaction model for simulation and mitigation of cascading failures,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 804–819, Mar. 2015

work page 2015
[7]

A Markovian influence graph formed from utility line outage data to mitigate large cascades,

K. Zhou, I. Dobsonet al., “A Markovian influence graph formed from utility line outage data to mitigate large cascades,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3224–3235, Jul. 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Interaction graphs for cascading failure analysis in power grids: A survey,

U. Nakarmi, M. R. Naeini, M. J. Hossain, and M. A. Hasnat, “Interaction graphs for cascading failure analysis in power grids: A survey,”Energies, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 2219, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 33 references

[9]

Can the Markovian influence graph simulate cascading resilience from historical outage data?

K. Zhou, I. Dobson, and Z. Wang, “Can the Markovian influence graph simulate cascading resilience from historical outage data?” inInt. Conf. Probabilistic Methods Appl. Power Syst. (PMAPS), Liege, Belgium, Aug. 2020

2020
[10]

Fast screening of vulnerable transmission lines in power grids: A pagerank-based approach,

Z. Ma, C. Shen, F. Liu, and S. Mei, “Fast screening of vulnerable transmission lines in power grids: A pagerank-based approach,”IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1982–1991, Mar. 2019

1982
[11]

Stochastic analysis of cascading-failure dynamics in power grids,

M. Rahnamay-Naeini, Z. Wang, N. Ghaniet al., “Stochastic analysis of cascading-failure dynamics in power grids,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1767–1779, Jul. 2014

2014
[12]

Cascading failures in inter- dependent infrastructures: An interdependent Markov-chain approach,

M. Rahnamay-Naeini and M. M. Hayat, “Cascading failures in inter- dependent infrastructures: An interdependent Markov-chain approach,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1997–2006, Jul. 2016

1997
[13]

Impacts of opera- tors’ behavior on reliability of power grids during cascading failures,

Z. Wang, M. Rahnamay-Naeini, J. M. Abreuet al., “Impacts of opera- tors’ behavior on reliability of power grids during cascading failures,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6013–6024, Nov. 2018

2018
[14]

Analysis and Mitigation of Cascading Failures Using a Stochastic Interaction Graph with Eigen-analysis,

Z. Guo, X. Su, K. Sun, B. Park, and S. Simunovic, “Analysis and Mitigation of Cascading Failures Using a Stochastic Interaction Graph with Eigen-analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, pp. 1–11, 2024

2024
[15]

Mitigation of Cascading Outages by Breaking Inter-Regional Linkages in the Interaction Graph,

C. Chen, S. Ma, K. Sun, X. Yang, C. Zheng, and X. Tang, “Mitigation of Cascading Outages by Breaking Inter-Regional Linkages in the Interaction Graph,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1501–1511, Mar. 2023

2023
[16]

Mitigation of cascading outages using a dynamic interaction graph-based optimal power flow model,

C. Chen, W. Juet al., “Mitigation of cascading outages using a dynamic interaction graph-based optimal power flow model,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 168 637–168 648, Nov. 2019

2019
[17]

Adaptive Power System Emergency Control Using Deep Reinforcement Learn- ing,

Q. Huang, R. Huang, W. Hao, J. Tan, R. Fan, and Z. Huang, “Adaptive Power System Emergency Control Using Deep Reinforcement Learn- ing,”IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1171–1182, Mar. 2020

2020
[18]

Learning and Fast Adaptation for Grid Emergency Control via Deep Meta Reinforcement Learning,

R. Huang, Y . Chen, T. Yin, Q. Huang, J. Tan, W. Yu, X. Li, A. Li, and Y . Du, “Learning and Fast Adaptation for Grid Emergency Control via Deep Meta Reinforcement Learning,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4168–4178, Nov. 2022

2022
[19]

An Online Search Method for Representative Risky Fault Chains Based on Reinforcement Learning and Knowledge Transfer,

Z. Zhang, R. Yao, S. Huang, Y . Chen, S. Mei, and K. Sun, “An Online Search Method for Representative Risky Fault Chains Based on Reinforcement Learning and Knowledge Transfer,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1856–1867, May 2020

2020
[20]

Mitigating cascading failures in power grids via markov decision- based load-shedding with dc power flow model,

P. Das, R. A. Shuvro, K. Povinelli, F. Sorrentino, and M. M. Hayat, “Mitigating cascading failures in power grids via markov decision- based load-shedding with dc power flow model,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 4048–4059, 2022

2022
[21]

Mitigating cascading failure in power grids with deep reinforcement learning-based remedial actions,

X. Zhang, Q. Wang, X. Biet al., “Mitigating cascading failure in power grids with deep reinforcement learning-based remedial actions,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, p. 110242, 2024

2024
[22]

Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization,

I. Dobson, B. Carreras, V . Lynch, and D. Newman, “Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization,”Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 026103, Jun. 2007

2007
[23]

A “Random Chemistry

M. J. Eppstein and P. D. H. Hines, “A “Random Chemistry” Algorithm for Identifying Collections of Multiple Contingencies That Initiate Cascading Failure,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1698–1705, Aug. 2012

2012
[24]

pandapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,

L. Thurner, A. Scheidler, F. Sch ¨afer, J.-H. Menke, J. Dollichon, F. Meier, S. Meinecke, and M. Braun, “pandapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 6, pp....

2018
[25]

R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto,Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press, 2018

2018
[26]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwalet al., “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

2017 arXiv
[27]

A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms,

S. Huang and S. Onta ˜n´on, “A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms,”The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 35, May 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.32473/flairs.v35i.130584

2022 doi
[28]

A methodology to generate statistically dependent wind speed scenarios,

J. M. Morales, R. Minguez, and A. J. Conejo, “A methodology to generate statistically dependent wind speed scenarios,”Applied Energy, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 843–855, 2010

2010
[29]

Gaussian Mixture Model Uncertainty Modeling for Power Systems Considering Mutual Assistance of Latent Variables,

X. Yang, Y . Li, Y . Zhao, Y . Li, G. Hao, and Y . Wang, “Gaussian Mixture Model Uncertainty Modeling for Power Systems Considering Mutual Assistance of Latent Variables,”IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, pp. 1–4, 2024

2024
[30]

Model-Free Renewable Scenario Generation Using Generative Adversarial Networks,

Y . Chen, Y . Wang, D. Kirschen, and B. Zhang, “Model-Free Renewable Scenario Generation Using Generative Adversarial Networks,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 3265–3275, May 2018

2018
[31]

The Most Frequent N-K Line Outages Occur in Motifs That Can Improve Contingency Selection,

K. Zhou, I. Dobson, and Z. Wang, “The Most Frequent N-K Line Outages Occur in Motifs That Can Improve Contingency Selection,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, pp. 1–12, 2023

2023
[32]

Stable-baselines3: Reliable re- inforcement learning implementations,

A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleaveet al., “Stable-baselines3: Reliable re- inforcement learning implementations,”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021

2021
[33]

Grid2op - A testbed platform to model sequential decision making in power systems,

B. Donnot, “Grid2op - A testbed platform to model sequential decision making in power systems,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://GitHub.com/Grid2Op/grid2op

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Initial review of methods for cascading failure analysis in electric power transmission systems,

R. Baldick, B. Chowdhury, I. Dobsonet al., “Initial review of methods for cascading failure analysis in electric power transmission systems,” inIEEE PES General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Jul. 2008

work page 2008

[2] [2]

Large blackouts in North America: Historical trends and policy implications,

P. Hines, J. Apt, and S. Talukdar, “Large blackouts in North America: Historical trends and policy implications,”Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 5249–5259, Dec. 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

North American blackout time series statistics and implications for blackout risk,

B. A. Carreras, D. E. Newman, and I. Dobson, “North American blackout time series statistics and implications for blackout risk,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4406–4414, Nov. 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Observed acceleration of cascading outages,

M. Noebels, I. Dobson, and M. Panteli, “Observed acceleration of cascading outages,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 3821–3824, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Cascading power outages propagate locally in an influence graph that is not the actual grid topology,

P. D. Hines, I. Dobson, and P. Rezaei, “Cascading power outages propagate locally in an influence graph that is not the actual grid topology,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 958–967, Mar. 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

An interaction model for simulation and mitigation of cascading failures,

J. Qi, K. Sun, and S. Mei, “An interaction model for simulation and mitigation of cascading failures,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 804–819, Mar. 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

A Markovian influence graph formed from utility line outage data to mitigate large cascades,

K. Zhou, I. Dobsonet al., “A Markovian influence graph formed from utility line outage data to mitigate large cascades,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3224–3235, Jul. 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Interaction graphs for cascading failure analysis in power grids: A survey,

U. Nakarmi, M. R. Naeini, M. J. Hossain, and M. A. Hasnat, “Interaction graphs for cascading failure analysis in power grids: A survey,”Energies, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 2219, 2020

work page 2020