Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 26 references

The GIST Korea Test System: A Public-Data Synthetic Model of the Korean Power Grid

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using only public map and statistical data, the paper reconstructs a working native-resolution test system of the Korean transmission grid that reproduces the same 85 GW solved operating point on every run.

desk verdict First public native-resolution Korean grid model, honestly assembled from public data, but the solved snapshot is a fitted artifact and the abstract contradicts the body; still deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.12791 v3 pith:XOMOA2SV submitted 2026-06-11 eess.SY cs.SY

Yun-Su Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords syntheticpowergridKoreantransmissionsystempublic-datamodelingtopologyreconstructionflowtestcasefrozenoperatingpointgeographicallygroundedmodelCEII-freedataset
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 prove that a national power grid can be reconstructed at native resolution from strictly public data, using Korea's distinctive islanded transmission system as the test case. It derives the 345 and 154 kV network topology from the geometry of crowd-sourced map data, reassembling fragmented line segments into substation-to-substation circuits and counting circuits from the first segment leaving each substation; unreachable substations are gap-filled with a geographic minimum spanning tree. The aggregate circuit length lands at 94/100/109 percent of published national figures at 765/345/154 kV. The payoff is a 2,217-bus test system with 512 generation sources and 3,708 AC circuits that is distributed with a frozen operating point, so a single deterministic power-flow pass reproduces an 85 GW high-demand snapshot with a 2.6 percent loss level and a transmission voltage profile inside operating limits. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies the first reproducible, confidential-data-free Korean case detailed enough for AC power-flow, contingency, and planning research.

What carries the argument

The two mechanisms that carry the argument are (1) the multi-source shortest-path reassembly that converts fragmented map line geometry into a usable substation-to-substation graph, together with the feeder-based circuit-count estimate (using the first segment's tag rather than a path maximum) and the geographic minimum-spanning-tree gap-fill for uncovered substations; and (2) the frozen operating point, where an offline coupled settlement of on-load tap changers, switched shunts, and remote voltage-control gains is baked into the data, collapsing all control loops into a single deterministic power-flow pass. Together they turn crowd-sourced geometry and aggregate statistics into a reproduci

What would settle it

Re-run the published deterministic power-flow computation on the distributed CSV files; if the reported operating point (voltages, losses, overloaded circuits) is not reproduced exactly, the frozen-operating-point claim fails. Alternatively, compare the model's 345 kV corridors and circuit multiplicities against a reliable public transmission map; any invented or missing trunk corridor would disprove the geographic-grounding claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the real substation-to-substation transmission graph of Korea can be recovered from public geographic data without confidential operator information. The method uses a multi-source shortest-path algorithm to reassemble line fragments into corridors, a feeder-based rule to estimate how many circuits each corridor carries, and a geographic minimum-spanning-tree fallback for the roughly 19 (345 kV) and 130 (154 kV) substations the map data does not reach. The paper then freezes an offline-settled operating point into the dataset—tap ratios, generator set points, and bus voltages—so a single Newton–Raphson computation with reactive-limit enforcement converges identicall

Load-bearing premise

The entire topology fidelity rests on the crowd-sourced geographic database being a faithful representation of the real Korean transmission network—especially the 154 kV layer, where only about 79 percent of substations are mapped, and the per-corridor circuit counts inferred from the first line segment's tag.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reproducible AC power-flow, contingency, and reactive-planning studies on the Korean system become possible without confidential operator data.
  • The reconstruction methodology provides a template for building geographically grounded synthetic models of other grids from public map data.
  • Distributing a solved, frozen operating point removes run-to-run nondeterminism, so benchmark comparisons between studies are meaningful.
  • The explicit 154 kV and 22.9 kV layers make the model a natural transmission-side anchor for combined transmission–distribution studies.
  • The close match to published circuit-length statistics (94/100/109 percent at 765/345/154 kV) indicates the recovered topology captures the real amount of transmission, even if individual circuits are approximate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader might infer that the same reassembly pipeline could be re-run as map data improves, yielding refreshed models automatically—turning a crowd-sourced map into a living grid representation—rather than a one-time snapshot.
  • Because per-corridor circuit counts are the weakest link, a natural sensitivity study would perturb only the counts and measure how much the 2.6 percent loss figure and the set of overloaded circuits move; large swings would indicate the operating point is partly an artifact of the counting rule.
  • The paper's 'structurally consistent with an independent coarser model' check could be sharpened into a quantitative cross-validation: compare region-level net imports and transfer flows across the two models, not just qualitative patterns.
  • The frozen operating point is a convenience but also a limitation: the optional online control loops show how the model would behave if taps and shunts were free to act, so extending the analysis to a time series would require re-freezing at every hour rather than relying on a single point.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a public-data synthetic model of the Korean transmission system, constructed by reassembling OpenStreetMap/OpenInfraMap power-layer geometry into substation-to-substation corridors, gap-filling unmapped substations with a geographic MST, and calibrating aggregate circuit lengths to EPSIS statistics. The model includes generators, loads, transformers, shunts, FACTS, and HVDC links, serialized in a PSS/E-compatible CSV schema. A solved 85 GW (or 91 GW, depending on the version) high-demand operating point is frozen into the data so that a single Newton–Raphson pass reproduces it. The paper reports aggregate circuit-length agreement (94/100/109% at 765/345/154 kV), power-flow convergence, a qualitative cross-check against KPG-193, and an explicit list of limitations.

Significance. If the inconsistencies noted below are resolved, this would be a valuable contribution: a reproducible, CEII-free, geographically grounded national-scale Korean test system with published data and tooling, addressing a real gap in the public test-system literature. The paper's strengths include its transparent public-data-only construction, the documented sensitivity analysis of the feeder-based circuit-count estimator, the honest statement of limitations in Sec. IX, and the release of the dataset, maps, and scripts. The aggregate circuit-length anchor and the KPG-193 structural comparison are genuine external checks, even if not corridor-level validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Sec. I/Table I] The manuscript contains two irreconcilable descriptions of the released model. The abstract states 2265 buses, 614 generation/renewable sources (151 GW), 3185 AC circuits, 3413 transformers, and a 91 GW evening peak; the full text and Table I state 2217 buses, 512 sources (144 GW), 3708 AC line circuits, 3324 transformers, and an 85 GW summer-afternoon snapshot. These are not minor typographical differences: the contribution is a dataset, and a reader cannot know which file set corresponds to the paper. Please make the abstract, body, tables, and data release internally consistent.
  2. [Sec. IV-D-c and IV-D-d] The 154 kV substation gap-fill accounting is inconsistent. The text reports EPSIS=788, OpenInfraMap≈697 (88%), and a deficit of 91 stations via Eq. (3); however Sec. IV-D-c says 130 unreached substations are gap-filled, and Sec. IV-D-d says the final mapped 154 kV count is about 820 (104%). 697+91=788, not 820; 697+130=827, also not 820. Please reconcile whether 'unreached' means unmapped, unconnected, or something else, and provide a single consistent set of counts for the synthetic substations and the final totals.
  3. [Sec. IV-D and IX-3] The central fidelity claim rests on OSM coverage that is 79% by line-length and 88% by substation count at 154 kV, with 130 substation connections gap-filled by an MST. The only external validation is national aggregate circuit-km (Fig. 5a), which cannot detect regionally correlated bias: if the missing substations are concentrated in urban areas, the MST will replace meshed urban subtransmission with long radial links, distorting flows, losses, and overload locations. Please add a spatial or regional validation (e.g., provincial circuit-km, line-length distributions, or a sensitivity analysis that perturbs the gap-filled corridors) or temper the claim that the layout is a faithful OSM-derived reconstruction rather than a geographically inspired synthetic approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Ref. [24]] The interactive map URL in Ref. [24] contains 'GIST-2064-bus-test-system', inconsistent with the 2217/2265-bus model nomenclature; update the link or the naming.
  2. [Sec. IV-D-d] Typo: 'V ogel' should be 'Vogel' (sunflower phyllotaxis). Also clarify whether the 1.15 routing/detour factor in Sec. IV-A is a public-data-derived value or a conventional engineering assumption.
  3. [Sec. IV-D] The phrase 'coverage is 100%, 96%, and 79% at 765/345/154 kV' is ambiguous: is this line-geometry length coverage, substation coverage, or circuit-count coverage? The later text cites 88% substation coverage at 154 kV; please define both metrics explicitly.
  4. [Sec. VI-F/VIII] The single-pass reproduction of the frozen operating point is, as Sec. VI-F acknowledges, a property of baking the solution into the data. Consider stating this more explicitly in the abstract or validation section so readers do not interpret it as an independent validation of the operating point.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Operating-point reproducibility is true by construction (frozen state baked into inputs), and reactive-limit convergence is cited as evidence even though shunt/FACTS set points were placed and sized to make that same snapshot solve; the core OSM-derived topology is independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. VI-F (Operating-point freezing), Sec. VII, Abstract]
    "the result is baked into the CSV inputs: the OLTC ratios into the transformer ratio fields, each generator's operating terminal voltage into its setpoint with remote regulation collapsed to local control (reg_bus=0), and the solved bus voltages and angles into the bus table. With the control loops thus absorbed into the data, the published model solves in a single deterministic Newton–Raphson pass—reactive-limit enforcement and HVDC converter settling only—and reproduces the same operating point on every run."

    The 85 GW snapshot is not produced from independently fixed inputs; it is the exact solved state computed by the offline settlement loop and then written back into bus.csv, gen.csv, and transformer fields. Therefore the claim that one deterministic Newton–Raphson pass 'reproduces' the snapshot is true by construction—the solved operating point is the fitted target stored in the data. The paper discloses this in Sec. VI-F, but the abstract and Sec. VII still present the single-pass reproduction as a headline property, and it is not independent evidence of model validity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. VIII-b (Voltage profile and convergence); Sec. V-E, IX-1]
    "Convergence under enforced reactive limits—rather than only with limits relaxed—is itself evidence that the reactive resources and dispatch are physically self-consistent under heavy load."

    The paper uses convergence as validation, but the reactive resources were themselves tuned to produce that convergence: Sec. V-E states that 'targeted 345 kV switched capacitors [are] placed only at the weak-voltage buses identified by the power flow solution,' and Sec. IX-1 admits that shunt/FACTS 'set points are chosen freely to match the operating snapshot' and are 'sized to the operating snapshot.' Thus the power-flow solution was used to place and size the very compensators that make the solution converge; citing that convergence as evidence of physical self-consistency is a fit-then-validate loop, not an independent check.

full rationale

Two construction-level circularities exist, but they are confined to the operating-point/reactive-validation chain, not to the core topology reconstruction. First, Sec. VI-F explicitly freezes the offline-settled taps, setpoints, and bus voltages/angles into the CSV inputs, so the single-pass 'reproduction' is the same state written back into the data; the headline reproducibility claim is thus true by construction. Second, Sec. VIII-b offers convergence under reactive limits as evidence of physical self-consistency, while Sec. V-E and IX-1 state that the reactive compensators were placed at weak buses identified by the power-flow solution and sized to the snapshot—so the compensators and the convergence are products of the same fit. These are disclosed rather than hidden, but they are genuine reduce-by-construction steps in the validation narrative. I do not find the more serious patterns: there is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation; KPG-193 is used only for standard R/X/B parameters and a qualitative structural cross-check. The OSM-derived 345/154 kV topology and its EPSIS circuit-length comparison (94/100/109%) are not corridor-fitted to the benchmark, and the paper honestly marks the 19/130 MST gap-fills and feeder-tag circuit counts as approximate. Hence the circularity is partial, centered on the frozen operating point and its reactive-support tuning, while the main topological contribution retains independent content. Score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is unusually transparent about what it estimates: Sec IX separates measured from estimated quantities. The endogenous degrees of freedom that most affect the headline operating point are the reactive set points, tap positions, capacity factors, detour factor, and the estimator choice that lands the circuit-length calibration at 106%. No exotic physical entities are introduced; the only invented objects are the flagged synthetic substation positions.

free parameters (7)
  • Routing/detour factor = 1.15
    Sec IV-A: physical line length = great-circle route distance × 1.15. A hand-set multiplier; changing it shifts the 94/100/109% circuit-length calibration.
  • Feeder-based circuit-count estimator = adopted; yields 106% of EPSIS 345 kV circuit-km (naive max-along-path gives 114%)
    Sec IV-D-b: the estimator is not unique and the adopted one was chosen after the naive estimator inflated length; the aggregate 106% agreement is partly a consequence of this choice.
  • Reactive set points of shunts/FACTS = not published (chosen to match snapshot)
    Sec V-E + Sec IX-1: 'per-device reactive set points (Mvar) are not available in public data, set points are chosen freely to match the operating snapshot.' Directly shapes the 85 GW convergence and voltage profile.
  • OLTC tap positions = frozen at 'plausible' values
    Sec VI-E/IX-2: tap positions and regulated set points are not public; frozen at plausible values, affecting the solved voltage profile.
  • Snapshot capacity factors = solar 0.45, wind 0.15, nuclear 0.98, coal 0.65
    Sec V-B: fixed for the summer-afternoon snapshot; chosen values determine the dispatch mix and resulting flows.
  • Load power factor = 0.95
    Sec V-C: a single assumed power factor for all aggregated loads.
  • Per-substation load cap = 216 MW
    Sec V-C: four 60 MVA banks at 0.9 PF; a design heuristic that triggers water-filling redistribution of load.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption OSM/OpenInfraMap power layer is a sufficiently complete and accurate record of the real 765/345/154 kV Korean transmission system (self-reported coverage 100/96/79%).
    Sec IV-D: the entire recovered topology rests on crowd-sourced geometry; 154 kV substation coverage is only 79% and coordinates are ±hundreds of metres (Sec IX-4).
  • domain assumption EPSIS published circuit-km values are accurate calibration targets.
    Sec VIII-a: the central quantitative validation compares model circuit-km to EPSIS 2024 figures; if those statistics are wrong, the 94/100/109% agreement is meaningless.
  • domain assumption Per-kilometre R/X/B parameters from KPG-193 [7] apply to this model's conductors.
    Sec III-B and IX-4: OSM carries no electrical parameters; line impedances are taken wholesale from the coarser public model.
  • domain assumption Geographic minimum-spanning-tree links are plausible proxies for the 19 (345 kV) and 130 (154 kV) unmapped substation connections.
    Sec IV-D-d: an MST is radial and length-minimizing, not a reconstruction of actual routing; the paper retains it as a gap-fill and fallback.
  • domain assumption N-1 firm transformer-bank sizing and the four-bank 154 kV station limit reflect Korean planning practice.
    Sec V-D/V-C: bank counts and the 216 MW load cap derive from this convention, stated but not verified against an independent source.
  • standard math Standard Newton-Raphson power-flow equations and pandapower's implementation are correct.
    Sec VI: the solver is a standard implementation [8], cited as independently established; not re-derived here.
invented entities (1)
  • 91 synthetic 154 kV substations (plus 19 at 345 kV gap-fills), flagged with a 'syn' prefix
    purpose: Placeholders for real substations that exist per EPSIS counts but whose coordinates the operator withholds; inserted to meet regional substation totals and prevent artificial urban overloads (Busan 283 → ~160 MW/station).
    Sec IV-D-d: positions are deterministic sunflower-spiral approximations around cities, explicitly not measured, and flagged in the data to stay distinct from mapped stations. No falsifiable handle outside the paper — they are invented placeholders, honestly labeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The GIST Korea Test System: A Public-Data Synthetic Model of the Korean Power Grid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XOMOA2SV

@misc{pith2026260612791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The GIST Korea Test System: A Public-Data Synthetic Model of the Korean Power Grid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XOMOA2SV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.12791}
}
read the original abstract

No model of the Korean transmission system at native resolution is publicly available, hindering reproducible research on one of the world's most distinctive grids - an islanded interconnection with extreme separation between generation and the Seoul Metropolitan Area load center and heavy reliance on extra-high-voltage transmission. Working strictly from public data, we present the GIST Korea test system, a geographically grounded synthetic model of the Korean grid. Unlike fully synthetic cases, whose lines match no real corridor, and aggregated public Korean models, it derives its 345 and 154 kV layout from the OpenStreetMap power layer by a multi-source shortest-path reassembly of overhead-line and underground-cable geometry, gap-fills unmapped substations by a geographic minimum spanning tree, and calibrates aggregate circuit length to published statistics (94/100/104% at 765/345/154 kV). The current release spans 2265 buses, 614 generation and renewable sources (151 GW), 3185 AC circuits with explicit underground sections, four HVDC converter links, 3413 transformers, and reactive resources, in a PSS/E-compatible CSV schema with zero-sequence and grounding data for unbalanced-fault studies. The model is distributed as a frozen operating point - taps, setpoints, and bus voltages settled once offline - so a single deterministic Newton-Raphson pass reproduces a 91GW evening peak snapshot anchored to the observed 2025 summer peak (2.3% losses, no overloads), consistent with the public KPG-193 model. Standard-parameter dynamic, protection, and unit commitment layers, and a library of 24 hourly operating points derived by security-constrained unit commitment, extend the dataset beyond a single power flow case. The dataset, maps, and tooling are released as a citable, continuously maintained platform for power flow, planning, and decarbonization studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geographic topology of the GIST 2064-bus test system. Province [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Geographic topology of the GIST 2217-bus test system. Province [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Regional generation versus load at the high demand snapshot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Generation mix: installed capacity versus dispatched energy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Regional generation versus load at the high demand snapshot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solved bus-voltage profile at the high demand snapshot (marker color, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solved transmission bus-voltage profile at the high demand snapshot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Public-benchmark validation. (a) Assembled circuit length versus published EPSIS, by voltage level. (b) Solved bus-voltage distribution at the high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Public-benchmark validation. (a) Assembled circuit length versus published EPSIS, by voltage level. (b) Solved transmission bus-voltage distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic net- works,

    A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Overbye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic net- works,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3258–3265, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    A methodology for the creation of geographically realistic synthetic power flow models,

    K. M. Gegner, A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Overbye, “A methodology for the creation of geographically realistic synthetic power flow models,” inProc. IEEE Power Energy Conf. Illinois (PECI), 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  3. [3]

    A metric-based validation process to assess the realism of synthetic power grids,

    A. B. Birchfield, E. Schweitzer, H. Athari, T. Xu, T. J. Overbye, A. Scaglione, and Z. Wang, “A metric-based validation process to assess the realism of synthetic power grids,”Energies, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1233, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Power flow convergence and reactive power planning in the creation of large synthetic grids,

    A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, and T. J. Overbye, “Power flow convergence and reactive power planning in the creation of large synthetic grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6667–6674, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Application of large-scale synthetic power system models for energy economic studies,

    T. Xu, A. B. Birchfield, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Overbye, “Application of large-scale synthetic power system models for energy economic studies,” inProc. 50th Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. (HICSS), 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Building and validating a large-scale combined transmission and distribution synthetic electricity system of Texas,

    C. Mateoet al., “Building and validating a large-scale combined transmission and distribution synthetic electricity system of Texas,”Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 159, Art. no. 110037, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    KPG 193: A synthetic Korean power grid test system for decarbonization studies,

    G. Song and J. Kim, “KPG 193: A synthetic Korean power grid test system for decarbonization studies,”arXiv:2411.14756, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    pandapower—An open-source Python tool for con- venient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,

    L. Thurneret al., “pandapower—An open-source Python tool for con- venient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6510–6521, 2018

    2018

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    MAT- POWER: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,

    R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sánchez, and R. J. Thomas, “MAT- POWER: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,”IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Siemens PTI,PSS/E Program Operation Manual, v33, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    J. J. Grainger and W. D. Stevenson,Power System Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    Kundur,Power System Stability and Control

    P. Kundur,Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994

    1994

  5. [13]

    Planet dump,

    OpenStreetMap contributors, “Planet dump,” https://www.openstreetmap. org; power layer via OpenInfraMap, https://openinframap.org, accessed 2026

    2026

  6. [14]

    Electric Power Statistics Information System (EPSIS),

    Korea Power Exchange (KPX), “Electric Power Statistics Information System (EPSIS),” https://epsis.kpx.or.kr, accessed 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    New and Renewable Energy statistics / regional deployment data,

    Korea Energy Agency (KEA), “New and Renewable Energy statistics / regional deployment data,” https://www.energy.or.kr, accessed 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    Korea Energy Statistical Informa- tion System (KESIS): regional electricity consumption,

    Korea Energy Economics Institute, “Korea Energy Statistical Informa- tion System (KESIS): regional electricity consumption,” https://www. kesis.net, accessed 2026

    2026

  9. [17]

    Statistics of Electric Power in Korea,

    Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), “Statistics of Electric Power in Korea,” annual report, https://home.kepco.co.kr, accessed 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Expansion of renewable energy in Jeju and directions for stable power-system operation (in Korean),

    T. Lee and Y . Lee, “Expansion of renewable energy in Jeju and directions for stable power-system operation (in Korean),”Energy Focus, Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), Winter 2020, pp. 48–63, Fig. 5 (Jeju power-system one-line diagram)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Virtues of the haversine,

    R. W. Sinnott, “Virtues of the haversine,”Sky and Telescope, vol. 68, no. 2, p. 159, 1984

    1984

  12. [20]

    Nearest neighbor pattern classification,

    T. Cover and P. Hart, “Nearest neighbor pattern classification,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 1967

    1967

  13. [21]

    Shortest connection networks and some generalizations,

    R. C. Prim, “Shortest connection networks and some generalizations,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1389–1401, 1957

    1957

  14. [22]

    A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,

    E. W. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,” Numer. Math., vol. 1, pp. 269–271, 1959

    1959

  15. [23]

    Statistics Korea (KOSTAT), administrative-district boundary data, dis- tributed via thesouthkorea-mapsdataset, https://github.com/southkorea/ southkorea-maps, accessed 2026

    2026

  16. [24]

    The GIST 2217-bus test system: interactive grid map,

    Y .-S. Kim, “The GIST 2217-bus test system: interactive grid map,” https://yskimpsl.github.io/GIST-2064-bus-test-system/grid_map_ reconstructed.html, accessed 2026

  17. [25]

    Power flow solution by Newton’s method,

    W. F. Tinney and C. E. Hart, “Power flow solution by Newton’s method,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-86, no. 11, pp. 1449–1460, Nov. 1967

    1967

  18. [26]

    The GIST 2217-bus Korean power-grid test system (dataset),

    Y .-S. Kim, “The GIST 2217-bus Korean power-grid test system (dataset),” GIST Power System Laboratory, https://psl.gist.ac.kr/prog/ bbsArticle/BBSMSTR_000000012527/list.do, accessed 2026. PREPRINT 11 TABLE V COLUMNS OF EACHCSVINPUT FILE. File Columns bus.csv bus, name, region,...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.