AI-Driven Stabilization in Power Grids through Controlling Line Admittances

B. Kahng; Hoyun Choi; J\"urgen Kurths; Sangjoon Park; Seungchan Jo; Yongsun Lee

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AI-Driven Stabilization in Power Grids through Controlling Line Admittances

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single reinforcement-learning controller, applied once after a transmission-line fault, reduces average frequency fluctuations in a real power-grid model by about half.

desk verdict The genuinely new thing here is the policy-derived placement ranking that beats PTDF; the 53% reduction figure is a proof-of-concept from an idealized actuator in a simplified model, not a field-ready number. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.02114 v2 pith:XEW7M62E submitted 2026-01-05 physics.soc-ph

Sangjoon Park , Hoyun Choi , Yongsun Lee , Seungchan Jo , Jürgen Kurths , B. Kahng This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.soc-ph

keywords powergridstabilityreinforcementlearninggraphneuralnetworkadmittancecontrolfrequencyfluctuationsregulatorplacementswingequationsingle-linefaults

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 tries to show that a single reinforcement-learning agent—called the Adaptive Admittance Controller (AAC)—can both plan and operate a power grid's response to a transmission-line fault by adjusting line admittances. The authors argue that the policy, trained on a swing-equation model of the reduced UK grid, reduces inertia-weighted frequency fluctuations by an average of 53% across all 105 single-line fault scenarios while leaving minor disturbances essentially untouched. They also claim that the controller's own action statistics yield a ranking of where to install a small number of regulators, and that just five strategically chosen regulators recover most of the benefit, outperforming the standard power-transfer-distribution-factor heuristic. If true, the result would unify two tasks usually treated separately—where to put flexible AC transmission devices and how to tune them in real time—and would offer a blueprint for stabilizing low-inertia grids with high renewable penetration.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a graph-neural-network policy that maps the grid state—inertias, dampings, powers, phases, angular velocities, fault-line indicator, and admittance matrix—to two outputs per line: a Bernoulli control decision c_ij and a Gaussian adjustment exponent q_ij. The applied action rescales admittance as Ŷ_ij = 2^{c_ij q_ij χ_ij} Y_ij, where χ_ij marks whether the line has a regulator, allowing both increases and decreases. Trained with a clipped policy-gradient update to maximize a reward that balances the reduction of inertia-weighted frequency fluctuation ΔΞ(ℓ) against a penalty on the number of controlled lines, this single-step policy selects both which lines to act on and h

What would settle it

A hardware-in-the-loop or electromagnetic-transient simulation of the same UK grid with realistic FACTS constraints—say, ±30% admittance limits, 50 ms response delay, and discrete tap steps—would settle the claim. If the same trained policy, applied at the delayed time with bounded actions, yields an average fluctuation reduction well below 53% or no longer reaches near-minimal fluctuation with the top five S(2) regulators, the paper's central quantitative conclusions would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single reinforcement-learning agent (the Adaptive Admittance Controller, AAC) can, in one immediate action, rescale transmission-line admittances after a line fault and thereby cut the average inertia-weighted frequency fluctuation by about 53% on the reduced UK grid and about 55% on a synthetic homogeneous grid. The agent intervenes selectively—strongly damping high-impact faults and barely touching minor ones. Its action statistics yield three placement rankings; the best (S(2), based on the ratio of adjusted to original admittance) reaches minimal fluctuation with 35 of 114 regulators, and five top-ranked regulators give near-optimal cost-effective stab

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that line admittance can be changed instantly, without bound, and essentially for free (apart from a small penalty on the number of controlled lines) at the moment a fault is detected; real flexible-AC-transmission devices have limited compensation ranges, response delays, and operating costs, so the 53% reduction and the 'five regulators suffice' conclusion depend on this idealization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the reduced UK grid, AAC reduces the average inertia-weighted frequency fluctuation by about 53% over all 105 single-line fault scenarios; on the homogeneous SHK grid it achieves about 55%.
Using the S(2) ranking, the minimum average fluctuation is reached with 35 of 114 regulators on the UK grid and 74 of 115 on the SHK grid; the top five S(2) lines already provide near-optimal, cost-effective stabilization.
The AAC-derived placement rankings outperform the traditional PTDF-based placement heuristic in terms of achievable fluctuation reduction.
The controller intervenes selectively: it strongly damps high-impact faults, leaves low-impact faults alone, and only one minor scenario shows a slight worsening.
The reduction in transient frequency fluctuation and the restoration of steady-state power flow are strongly correlated (ρ≈0.83 on the UK grid, 0.81 on SHK), indicating simultaneous stabilization of both regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension not tested in the paper: training the same controller under actuator constraints—bounded admittance range, finite response time, and switching costs—would show whether the ~53% reduction and the top-five placement result survive realistic device limitations.
Because the action only rescales line coupling strengths in a Kuramoto-like swing network, the same framework could be applied proactively (before a fault) or to other flow networks where a few link-weight changes could suppress cascades, such as road or data networks.
The finding that S(2) (typical control effort) beats both intervention frequency and PTDF suggests a testable hypothesis: the most effective regulator locations are those where the grid's response is most sensitive to admittance changes, a quantity that could be computed directly from the swing-equation Jacobian.
The near-optimality of five regulators hints at an underlying low-dimensional structure in which only a handful of lines control the slowest, most vulnerable modes; analyzing the network's dominant eigenmodes could connect this empirical ranking to modal controllability.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Colleague,

Quick take: this is a competent simulation study that does something genuinely new — it uses an RL policy's behavior to derive a line-placement ranking (S(1)–S(3)) and shows that, on the same evaluation, that ranking beats the standard PTDF method for choosing where to put admittance regulators. The transfer to an independent synthetic grid (SHK) adds credibility. But the headline numbers (53% / 55% reduction in frequency fluctuations, "five regulators suffice") rest on an idealized actuator and single-seed runs, so read them as proof-of-concept.

What's good. The experiment is well specified: swing equation, all single-line faults in a standard reduced UK model, a clear reward function, and a GNN/PPO policy in a single-step episode. The S(2) ranking outperforming PTDF is a legitimately new result. The observation that the trained policy only touches a few lines is interesting, and the fact that it transfers to a homogeneous synthetic grid helps. The paper's writing is clear and the methods are reproducible in principle.

Where it's soft. The actuator is a big one: Eq. 5 lets a line's admittance be rescaled by an arbitrary factor instantly after the fault. Real FACTS/TCSC devices have bounded ranges and response times. The Discussion is honest about the simplified grid and single-fault scope, but silent on this. The 53% figure is also the training objective evaluated on the training distribution — there's no held-out fault set, so it's expected to look good. No error bars or seeds are reported, so we don't know how stable that number is. The ρ≈0.83 correlation between ΔΞ and Δd is presented as "bridging nonlinearity," but it may just reflect the fact that the same control action drives both reductions; common cause isn't distinguished. The "five regulators" claim is also weaker than it sounds: the minimum fluctuation requires 35–45 regulators; five gives a big drop but not the minimum. The reward weights (0.05, Rc=1e-5) are tuned without sensitivity analysis, so the sparsity claims are partly built in.

Verdict. This deserves a serious referee. The placement-ranking result is worth publishing after the usual revisions: multi-seed runs, actuator constraints, and a held-out scenario test would materially strengthen it. The abstract's "real UK power grid" and "broad spectrum" language should be toned down to what was simulated.

I'd bring it to a reading group and would cite the S(2)-vs-PTDF comparison in my own work.

Recommendation: send to peer review.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the Adaptive Admittance Controller (AAC), a PPO-trained graph neural network that, in a single step after a line outage, outputs admittance multipliers for all controlled lines according to Eq. (5). On a reduced 54-bus model of the UK grid (105 fault cases) and on an SHK synthetic grid, the authors report that AAC reduces the inertia-weighted frequency-fluctuation measure Xi by about 53% and 55%, respectively. They then derive three line-ranking metrics S(1)-S(3) from the trained policy, report that S(2) reaches the minimum average fluctuation with about 35 regulators, and propose that the top five S(2) lines are a cost-effective regulator set. A phase-space analysis is used to claim that the controller simultaneously restores pre-fault power flows. The central quantitative claims are the 53%/55% reductions and the sufficiency of the five-regulator set.

Significance. If established, the results would be a useful contribution to the growing literature on RL-based grid control: a single framework that outputs both regulator placement and control settings, with a control-aware ranking that outperforms the PTDF heuristic. The paper is also careful to state its simulation equations, the single-step episode design, and the reward function. However, the paper does not yet provide independent evidence that the main numbers are robust. All headline figures are single-run outcomes, the evaluation faults overlap with the training faults, the actuation model in Eq. (5) is unbounded and instantaneous, and the PPO loss in Eq. (7) is written in a non-standard form. These are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the abstract's claims of real-time stabilization and cost-effective placement.

major comments (4)

[Sec. V, Eq. (5); Sec. II.A] The control action is idealized. In Eq. (5), \hat{Y}_{ij}=2^{\delta y_{ij}}Y_{ij} with \delta y_{ij}=c_{ij}q_{ij}\chi_{ij}; q_{ij} is sampled from N(\mu_{ij},\sigma_{ij}) during training and set to \mu_{ij} during evaluation, and no bound is placed on \mu_{ij} or \sigma_{ij}. The admittance can therefore be rescaled by arbitrary powers of two instantaneously after the fault. Real TCSC/FACTS devices have bounded compensation ranges, finite switching times, and communication/control latency. The Discussion flags only the simplified UK model and the single-fault restriction, not this actuator model. Because the 53%/55% reductions and the 'five regulators suffice' conclusion are obtained under this unbounded instantaneous actuation, the practical interpretation of the results is not yet supported. I ask for experiments with bounded actions (e.g., |\delta y| \le \delta_max), finite actuation
[Sec. V (reward); Sec. II.A and Fig. 1(b)] The headline 53% is not an independent out-of-sample result. The reward is R(\ell)=\Delta\Xi(\ell)/(1+0.05\sum c), with \Delta\Xi defined from Eq. (2), and the same \Delta\Xi is the quantity averaged in Fig. 1(b) to obtain the 53%. The policy is trained on all 105 single-line faults that are then used for evaluation (Sec. V: 'L(\ell) is averaged on all \ell-th single-line failures'; Sec. II.A: 'we consider all single-line failure scenarios'). No train/test split, no seed count, and no confidence intervals are reported; Figs. 1 and 3 show single curves. At minimum, please report multi-seed mean \pm standard deviation and a held-out or out-of-distribution evaluation (e.g., cross-validated over fault scenarios, or on SHK parameter perturbations). Without this, the numbers in the abstract cannot be distinguished from overfitting to the training objective.
[Sec. V, Eq. (7)] The PPO surrogate loss is written with max, not the standard min: L(\ell) = - max[ (\pi/\pi_old)R, clip(\pi/\pi_old,1-\epsilon,1+\epsilon)R ]. In the standard clipped surrogate the outer operation is min, which is deliberately pessimistic and prevents the policy from exploiting the unclipped ratio when the ratio is outside the clipping range. With the max operation as written, positive rewards are not clipped for ratios above 1+\epsilon and the update has an optimistic bias. If this is a typographical error, it must be corrected; if the authors intentionally use max, the choice needs a derivation. Since no code is included, the reader cannot tell which objective was actually optimized.
[Sec. II.B, Fig. 3; Sec. V (reward)] The placement conclusions depend on hand-tuned reward coefficients without sensitivity analysis. The penalty coefficient 0.05 and the no-effect reward Rc are described as empirically chosen, and Fig. 3 shows the resulting average \Xi versus N_regulator for a single training run. The statement that the minimum is reached with 35 regulators, and that five regulators are a 'sweet spot', is therefore specific to one choice of these hyperparameters and one random seed. Moreover, the Discussion's claim of 'cutting implementation costs by more than 95%' equates a reduction in regulator count with cost reduction, which is not justified for FACTS installations. Please add sensitivity analysis to (0.05, Rc), a random-placement baseline, and error bars for each N_regulator curve; additionally, either rephrase or support the cost claim.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract says 'real UK power grid' and 'real time'; the model is the reduced Pagnier-Jacquod UK grid, and control is a one-shot action after a fault. Please qualify the wording to avoid overstatement.
[Figs. 4 and 5] Typos: 'Uncontrlled' in Fig. 4 (and Fig. 9 in the SI) should be 'Uncontrolled'; 'venctor' in Fig. 5 should be 'vector'; 'F ACTS' in the Introduction should be 'FACTS'.
[General] No data or code availability statement is provided. For a paper whose results depend on a trained stochastic policy, adding code, seeds, and trained-model details is important for reproducibility.
[Eq. (2)] The displayed formula has a typesetting issue ('1P i mi'); please correct so that the inertia-weighted variance is unambiguous.
[SI Table I] The SHK network's clustering coefficient (0.4070) differs noticeably from the UK value (0.5025); 'closely match' should be quantified or softened.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Headline 53%/55% reduction is the RL training objective evaluated on the training scenarios; no independent held-out prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. II.A (Fig. 1b, 'On average...') and Sec. V (Reward design and PPO loss)]
"On average, it decreases Ξ(ℓ) by approximately 53%. ... R(ℓ) = ΔΞ(ℓ)/(1 + 0.05 Σ_{(i,j)} c_{ij}) if ΔΞ(ℓ) ≠ 0, Rc otherwise. ... To compute the decrease in frequency fluctuation ΔΞ(ℓ), we set T = 2 seconds for rapid policy updates during training, while T = 10 seconds is used in evaluation ... L(ℓ) is averaged on all ℓ-th single-line failures, and the policy network is updated through gradient ascent to maximize expected reward."

The headline 53% (and SI 55%) is not a prediction from an independent model: it is the average reduction in Ξ on the same single-line-fault scenarios used to train the policy, and the reward is a monotone function of that same ΔΞ. The PPO loss is averaged over all ℓ-th failures and maximizes expected reward, so the direction and rough magnitude of the reported reduction are forced by the training objective. The only deviations from exact identity are the shorter training window (T=2 s) vs. evaluation window (T=10 s) and the sparsity denominator, but no held-out or out-of-sample fault split is reported.

full rationale

The paper's internal simulation is coherent, and most of the claimed results (ranking comparisons, phase-space correlations, placement curves) are empirical and self-contained rather than derived by definition or by a self-citation chain. The only self-citation, ref. [36] for the definition of Ξ, is not load-bearing; Ξ is a standard inertia-weighted variance measure. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The unbounded instantaneous admittance actuation in Eq. (5) is a serious modeling idealization, but that is a correctness/realism risk, not circularity. The one genuine circularity concern is that the central quantitative claim—the 53%/55% reduction—is the training objective evaluated on the training distribution: the reward is built from ΔΞ and the policy is trained and evaluated on the same fault set. This is partial circularity because a policy could in principle fail to reduce Ξ, and the training/evaluation windows differ, so the reduction is not a mathematical identity; nevertheless, the reported figure is an in-sample measure of the fitted objective rather than an independent prediction. Score 5 reflects this partial reduction-by-construction while recognizing the substantial independent empirical content elsewhere in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the AAC is a software controller. The entries above are the free parameters that set the reported numbers and the domain/ad-hoc assumptions the simulation rests on. Notably, the reward weights (0.05, R_c) directly govern the sparsity claims, and the SHK parameters are fitted to match the UK topology; absent GNN architecture and training hyperparameters are the main reproducibility gap.

free parameters (6)

reward control-penalty coefficient = 0.05
Chosen empirically 'as the value that yielded the most stable training performance' (Sec. V). Directly controls how few lines the policy touches, so the 'small number of regulators' and '35–45 or 5 lines suffice' conclusions are functions of this number; no sensitivity analysis reported.
no-effect reward R_c = 10^-5 (UK grid; chosen again for SHK)
Set 'as this value produced the best performance' (Sec. V, SI). Sets the intervention threshold that produces 'selective intervention'; tuned on the same grid and fault set used for the headline evaluation.
evaluation window T = 10 s evaluation, 2 s training
Ξ(ℓ) and hence the 53%/55% figures are integrals over T (Eq. 2); sensitivity of the conclusions to T is not reported.
SHK generator parameters = p=0.4, q=0.9, r=0.1, s=0.2
Chosen so the synthetic grid's topological metrics match the UK grid (SI Table I); the SHK 55% result is conditional on this match.
PPO clipping epsilon = 0.1
Standard PPO parameter (Eq. 7); minor.
'sweet spot' regulator count = 5
Hand-selected knee of the Ξ vs N_regulator curve (Fig. 3); the headline 'cuts implementation costs by more than 95%' derives from this choice.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Post-fault grid dynamics are governed by the swing equation (Eq. 1) with constant bus voltages.
Invoked in Sec. II.A; the entire study is a simulation of this model; voltage/reactive-power dynamics, protection relays, and discrete events are absent.
domain assumption All bus voltages equal 1 in per-unit, so coupling Kij equals admittance Yij.
Sec. II.A: 'Vi and Vj... are set to 1 under the assumption that the system is limited to the high voltage AC level'.
domain assumption A fault is the instantaneous removal of one line (Yuv = 0); the grid must remain connected, restricting scenarios to 105 of 114 lines.
Sec. II.A; excludes 9 disconnecting lines; no multi-line faults or generator/load events (explicitly deferred in Sec. IV).
domain assumption Ξ(ℓ) (Eq. 2) is the operative stability measure: reducing inertia-weighted frequency variance over 10 s equals stabilizing.
Defined in Sec. II.A; transient fluctuation damping is reported as 'stabilization'; loss-of-synchrony events are not separately counted.
domain assumption Iij = |sin(θi − θj)| is the fraction of line capacity used, so power-flow restoration is measured as return of phase differences to pre-fault values.
Sec. III, Eqs. (3)–(4); capacity = Kij implicit.
ad hoc to paper The reward R(ℓ) = ΔΞ/(1 + 0.05 Σc) or R_c is the correct scalar proxy for control value, with a one-shot action structure.
Sec. V, Reward design; the headline metric is the first term of this reward, so part of the evaluation shares construction with the objective.
ad hoc to paper Admittance actions in Eq. (5) are instantly and boundlessly realizable with no device dynamics.
Sec. V, Eq. (5); real TCSC/FACTS devices have bounded compensation ranges, discrete settings, and actuation delays; this is the paper's weakest unstated premise.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Driven Stabilization in Power Grids through Controlling Line Admittances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEW7M62E

@misc{pith2026260102114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Driven Stabilization in Power Grids through Controlling Line Admittances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEW7M62E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02114}
}

read the original abstract

The global transition from traditional power plants to renewable energy sources introduces new challenges in grid stability, primarily because inverter-based technologies provide insufficient inertia. To address this, we introduce an artificial intelligence algorithm that autonomously stabilizes power grids by adaptively tuning admittance regulators in response to disturbances. This Adaptive Admittance Controller (AAC) algorithm not only stabilizes the system in real time but also identifies the best regulator locations, thereby unifying grid planning and real time control within a single framework. When tested on a real UK power grid, the AAC markedly reduces frequency deviations and rapidly restores nominal operation. In addition, the algorithm isolates a small number of key regulators and intervenes only on these, lowering both system complexity and cost. The AAC algorithm further reduces the nonlinearity effect, quickly stabilizing the frequency and power flow. This intelligent control scheme enables power grids to reliably return to stable operating conditions under a broad spectrum of fault scenarios. The proposed framework can also be used to mitigate cascading failures by adaptively controlling critical links in a variety of networked infrastructures, such as cascades of traffic congestion on road networks or fuse failures in energy-saving systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02114 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Rankings of transmission lines for each metric, (a) the PTDF; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Averaged frequency fluctuation Ξ vs. the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phase space analysis of the AAC algorithm’s operating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Reinforcement learning framework for the AAC algorithm. The agent observes the power grid state, including system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The frequency fluctuations Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The frequency fluctuations Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Phase space analysis of the AAC algorithm’s operating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Paths to synchronization in the Kuramoto model with inertia
nlin.AO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

In the inertial Kuramoto model, Gaussian frequencies produce hierarchical central entrainment while uniform frequencies produce homogeneous peripheral mergers, yielding smooth versus stepwise order-parameter growth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Obama, Presidential policy directive 21–critical infras- tructure security and resilience (2013)

B. Obama, Presidential policy directive 21–critical infras- tructure security and resilience (2013)

2013
[2]

S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom, and T. K. Kelly, Identi- 8 fying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies, IEEE control systems magazine 21, 11 (2001)

2001
[3]

Shaukat, S

N. Shaukat, S. Ali, C. Mehmood, B. Khan, M. Jawad, U. Farid, Z. Ullah, S. Anwar, and M. Majid, A survey on consumers empowerment, communication technologies, and renewable generation penetration within smart grid, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81, 1453 (2018)

2018
[4]

Gulraiz, S

A. Gulraiz, S. Sajjad Haider Zaidi, and B. Moham- mad Khan, Advancing energy integration: renewable sources, ancillary services, and stability, PloS one 20, e0324812 (2025)

2025
[5]

Crivellaro, A

A. Crivellaro, A. Tayyebi, C. Gavriluta, D. Groß, A. Anta, F. Kupzog, and F. D¨ orfler, Beyond low-inertia systems: Massive integration of grid-forming power converters in transmission grids, in 2020 IEEE power & energy society general meeting (PESGM)(IEEE, 2020) pp. 1–5

2020
[6]

Khalid, Smart grids and renewable energy systems: Perspectives and grid integration challenges, Energy Strat- egy Reviews 51, 101299 (2024)

M. Khalid, Smart grids and renewable energy systems: Perspectives and grid integration challenges, Energy Strat- egy Reviews 51, 101299 (2024)

2024
[7]

K. Y. Yap, C. R. Sarimuthu, and J. M.-Y. Lim, Virtual inertia-based inverters for mitigating frequency instability in grid-connected renewable energy system: A review, Applied Sciences 9, 5300 (2019)

2019
[8]

Kerdphol, F

T. Kerdphol, F. S. Rahman, and Y. Mitani, Virtual iner- tia control application to enhance frequency stability of interconnected power systems with high renewable energy penetration, Energies 11, 981 (2018)

2018

Show all 48 references

[9]

Smith, O

O. Smith, O. Cattell, E. Farcot, R. D. O’Dea, and K. I. Hopcraft, The effect of renewable energy incorporation on power grid stability and resilience, Science advances 8, eabj6734 (2022)

2022
[10]

Bialek, What does the gb power outage on 9 august 2019 tell us about the current state of decarbonised power systems?, Energy Policy 146, 111821 (2020)

J. Bialek, What does the gb power outage on 9 august 2019 tell us about the current state of decarbonised power systems?, Energy Policy 146, 111821 (2020)

2019
[11]

Zhang, H

G. Zhang, H. Zhong, Z. Tan, T. Cheng, Q. Xia, and C. Kang, Texas electric power crisis of 2021 warns of a new blackout mechanism, CSEE journal of Power and Energy Systems 8, 1 (2022)

2021
[12]

N. M. Flores, H. McBrien, V. Do, M. V. Kiang, J. Schlegelmilch, and J. A. Casey, The 2021 texas power crisis: distribution, duration, and disparities, Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology 33, 21 (2023)

2021
[13]

Sharma, A

N. Sharma, A. Acharya, I. Jacob, S. Yamujala, V. Gupta, and R. Bhakar, Major blackouts of the decade: Underlying causes, recommendations and arising challenges, in 2021 9th IEEE International Conference on Power Systems (ICPS) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 1–6

2021
[14]

M. A. Raza, K. L. Khatri, A. Hussain, M. H. A. Khan, A. Shah, and H. Taj, Analysis and proposed remedies for power system blackouts around the globe, Engineering Proceedings 20, 5 (2022)

2022
[15]

St¨ urmer, A

J. St¨ urmer, A. Plietzsch, T. Vogt, F. Hellmann, J. Kurths, C. Otto, K. Frieler, and M. Anvari, Increasing the re- silience of the texas power grid against extreme storms by hardening critical lines, Nature Energy 9, 526 (2024)

2024
[16]

Pagnier and P

L. Pagnier and P. Jacquod, Inertia location and slow network modes determine disturbance propagation in large-scale power grids, PloS one 14, e0213550 (2019)

2019
[17]

Fern´ andez-Guillam´ on, E

A. Fern´ andez-Guillam´ on, E. Muljadi, and A. Molina- Garc ´ ıa, Frequency control studies: A review of power sys- tem, conventional and renewable generation unit model- ing, Electric Power Systems Research 211, 108191 (2022)

2022
[18]

Sch¨ afer, D

B. Sch¨ afer, D. Witthaut, M. Timme, and V. Latora, Dy- namically induced cascading failures in power grids, Na- ture communications 9, 1975 (2018)

1975
[19]

Pahwa, C

S. Pahwa, C. Scoglio, and A. Scala, Abruptness of cascade failures in power grids, Scientific reports 4, 3694 (2014)

2014
[20]

Zhang and O

Y. Zhang and O. Ya˘ gan, Optimizing the robustness of elec- trical power systems against cascading failures, Scientific reports 6, 27625 (2016)

2016
[21]

Y. Dai, R. Preece, and M. Panteli, Risk assessment of cascading failures in power systems with increasing wind penetration, Electric Power Systems Research211, 108392 (2022)

2022
[22]

Alexander, Oscillatory solutions of a model system of nonlinear swing equations, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 8, 130 (1986)

J. Alexander, Oscillatory solutions of a model system of nonlinear swing equations, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 8, 130 (1986)

1986
[23]

Q. Qiu, R. Ma, J. Kurths, and M. Zhan, Swing equation in power systems: Approximate analytical solution and bifurcation curve estimate, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30 (2020)

2020
[24]

´Odor, I

G. ´Odor, I. Papp, K. Benedek, and B. Hartmann, Improv- ing power-grid systems via topological changes or how self-organized criticality can help power grids, Physical Review Research 6, 013194 (2024)

2024
[25]

Sch¨ afer, T

B. Sch¨ afer, T. Pesch, D. Manik, J. Gollenstede, G. Lin, H.-P. Beck, D. Witthaut, and M. Timme, Understanding braess’ paradox in power grids, Nature Communications 13, 5396 (2022)

2022
[26]

N. L. Cain and H. T. Nelson, What drives opposition to high-voltage transmission lines?, Land use policy 33, 204 (2013)

2013
[27]

Cohen, K

J. Cohen, K. Moeltner, J. Reichl, and M. Schmidthaler, An empirical analysis of local opposition to new transmission lines across the eu-27, The Energy Journal 37, 59 (2016)

2016
[28]

Lee, S.-H

H.-J. Lee, S.-H. Kim, K. Hur, J.-S. Choi, H.-J. Oh, B.-J. Lee, G. Jang, and J. H. Chow, Integrating tcsc to enhance transmission capability and security: Feasibility studies for korean electric power system, in 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM)(IEEE,

2016
[29]

Azimi and G

Z. Azimi and G. Shahgholian, Power system transient stability enhancement with tcsc controller using genetic algorithm optimization, International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences 10, 09–15 (2019)

2019
[30]

I. E. Nkan, E. E. Okpo, and A. B. Inyang, Enhancement of power systems transient stability with tcsc: a case study of the nigerian 330 kv, 48-bus network, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis 6, 4828 (2023)

2023
[31]

Silver, A

D. Silver, A. Huang, C. J. Maddison, A. Guez, L. Sifre, G. Van Den Driessche, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, V. Panneershelvam, M. Lanctot, et al., Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search, nature 529, 484 (2016)

2016
[32]

Mirhoseini, A

A. Mirhoseini, A. Goldie, M. Yazgan, J. W. Jiang, E. Songhori, S. Wang, Y.-J. Lee, E. Johnson, O. Pathak, A. Nova, et al., A graph placement methodology for fast chip design, Nature 594, 207 (2021)

2021
[33]

Degrave, F

J. Degrave, F. Felici, J. Buchli, M. Neunert, B. Tracey, F. Carpanese, T. Ewalds, R. Hafner, A. Abdolmaleki, D. de Las Casas, et al., Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning, Nature 602, 414 (2022)

2022
[34]

Jo, J.-Y

S. Jo, J.-Y. Oh, Y. T. Yoon, and Y. G. Jin, Self-healing 9 radial distribution network reconfiguration based on deep reinforcement learning, Results in Engineering 22, 102026 (2024)

2024
[35]

R. A. Jacob, S. Paul, S. Chowdhury, Y. R. Gel, and J. Zhang, Real-time outage management in active distri- bution networks using reinforcement learning over graphs, Nature Communications 15, 4766 (2024)

2024
[36]

Y. Lee, H. Choi, L. Pagnier, C. H. Kim, J. Lee, B. Jhun, H. Kim, J. Kurths, and B. Kahng, Reinforcement learning optimizes power dispatch in decentralized power grid, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 186, 115293 (2024)

2024
[37]

Huang, W

R. Huang, W. Gao, R. Fan, and Q. Huang, Damping inter- area oscillation using reinforcement learning controlled tcsc, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution 16, 2265 (2022)

2022
[38]

Ernst, M

D. Ernst, M. Glavic, and L. Wehenkel, Power systems stability control: reinforcement learning framework, IEEE transactions on power systems 19, 427 (2004)

2004
[39]

Schultz, J

P. Schultz, J. Heitzig, and J. Kurths, A random growth model for power grids and other spatially embedded in- frastructure networks, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 223, 2593 (2014)

2014
[40]

A. J. Wood, B. F. Wollenberg, and G. B. Shebl´ e,Power generation, operation, and control(John wiley & sons, 2013)

2013
[41]

Habur and D

K. Habur and D. O’Leary, Facts-flexible alternating cur- rent transmission systems: for cost effective and reliable transmission of electrical energy, Siemens-World Bank document–Final Draft Report, Erlangen 46, 244 (2004)

2004
[42]

Longoria, M

G. Longoria, M. Lynch, N. Farrell, and J. A. Curtis, The impact of planning and regulatory delays for major energy infrastructure, Tech. Rep. (ESRI Working Paper, 2022)

2022
[43]

Defferrard, X

M. Defferrard, X. Bresson, and P. Vandergheynst, Con- volutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering, Advances in neural information process- ing systems 29 (2016)

2016
[44]

Schulman, F

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, Proximal policy optimization algorithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[45]

Moalla, A

S. Moalla, A. Miele, D. Pyatko, R. Pascanu, and C. Gul- cehre, No representation, no trust: connecting representa- tion, collapse, and trust issues in ppo, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 69652 (2024)

2024
[46]

Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, X. Bi, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Wu, et al., Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[47]

Rafailov, A

R. Rafailov, A. Sharma, E. Mitchell, C. D. Manning, S. Ermon, and C. Finn, Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model, Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 53728 (2023)

2023
[48]

Zhang and L

Q. Zhang and L. Ying, Zeroth-order policy gradient for reinforcement learning from human feedback without re- ward inference, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17401 (2024). SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION A. T opological and Dynamical Characteristics of the SHK Network To verify that th...

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Obama, Presidential policy directive 21–critical infras- tructure security and resilience (2013)

B. Obama, Presidential policy directive 21–critical infras- tructure security and resilience (2013)

2013

[2] [2]

S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom, and T. K. Kelly, Identi- 8 fying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies, IEEE control systems magazine 21, 11 (2001)

2001

[3] [3]

Shaukat, S

N. Shaukat, S. Ali, C. Mehmood, B. Khan, M. Jawad, U. Farid, Z. Ullah, S. Anwar, and M. Majid, A survey on consumers empowerment, communication technologies, and renewable generation penetration within smart grid, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81, 1453 (2018)

2018

[4] [4]

Gulraiz, S

A. Gulraiz, S. Sajjad Haider Zaidi, and B. Moham- mad Khan, Advancing energy integration: renewable sources, ancillary services, and stability, PloS one 20, e0324812 (2025)

2025

[5] [5]

Crivellaro, A

A. Crivellaro, A. Tayyebi, C. Gavriluta, D. Groß, A. Anta, F. Kupzog, and F. D¨ orfler, Beyond low-inertia systems: Massive integration of grid-forming power converters in transmission grids, in 2020 IEEE power & energy society general meeting (PESGM)(IEEE, 2020) pp. 1–5

2020

[6] [6]

Khalid, Smart grids and renewable energy systems: Perspectives and grid integration challenges, Energy Strat- egy Reviews 51, 101299 (2024)

M. Khalid, Smart grids and renewable energy systems: Perspectives and grid integration challenges, Energy Strat- egy Reviews 51, 101299 (2024)

2024

[7] [7]

K. Y. Yap, C. R. Sarimuthu, and J. M.-Y. Lim, Virtual inertia-based inverters for mitigating frequency instability in grid-connected renewable energy system: A review, Applied Sciences 9, 5300 (2019)

2019

[8] [8]

Kerdphol, F

T. Kerdphol, F. S. Rahman, and Y. Mitani, Virtual iner- tia control application to enhance frequency stability of interconnected power systems with high renewable energy penetration, Energies 11, 981 (2018)

2018