Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Secure State Estimation and Control for Cyber Security of AC Microgrids

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A microgrid operator can recover rotor angles, rotor speeds, and phase angles from corrupted synchrophasor data.

desk verdict Plausible extension of compressed-sensing secure estimation to AC microgrids, but the exact-recovery claim is unsupported because the nonlinear error vector's sparsity is never established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05843 v1 pith:6Y36Y7XW submitted 2019-08-16 eess.SY cs.SY

Dariush Fooladivanda , Qie Hu , Young Hwan Chang , Peter Sauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords securestateestimationdynamicACmicrogridscyber-physicalattackssparseerrorcorrectionl1minimizationsynchrophasormeasurementsstructure-preservingpowersystemmodel
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 a microgrid operator can keep monitoring and controlling an AC microgrid even when some phasor measurements are corrupted by cyber attacks or communication failures. It models corrupted readings as sparse errors and recovers them with an $\ell^1$-minimization decoder, without linearizing the microgrid into a simple network of oscillators. The central claim is that the true rotor angles, rotor speeds, and phase angles can be reconstructed exactly from corrupted measurements, and that the attack signals themselves can be recovered. Numerical experiments on a modified 33-bus distribution network show zero estimation error after time-varying attacks on either generator measurements or inverter-interfaced power supply measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite measurement equation Y = ΦX[0] + ΨE together with the annihilating matrix Ω chosen so that ΩΦ = 0, which produces the reduced equation ΩY = ΩΨE. The construction uses the fact that the nonlinear coupling terms in the structure-preserving swing equations can be rewritten using measured angles and attack differences, producing error coefficients that are one-minus-cosine and sine of attack differences; symmetry reduces the per-slot dimension from 2Σn(i) to 2|E|. The decoder then treats E as a sparse error vector and solves min ||E||1 subject to ΩY = ΩΨE, recovering E and then the initial state X[0]. The entire argument rests on the sparsity of E and on ΩΨ satisfying the full-rank or restricted-isometry-type condition from the paper's Lemma 1.

What would settle it

On the same 33-bus model used in the numerical section, attack a single generator bus that is incident to several lines, then compute the number of nonzero entries in the reduced error vector and check whether all subsets of 2s columns of the decoding matrix have full rank. If the true error vector is denser than the Lemma 1 threshold or a 2s-column submatrix is singular, the $\ell^1$ decoder has no guarantee; a simulation in which the decoded attack signal differs from the injected one anywhere would settle that the perfect-recovery claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery claim is that secure dynamic state estimation for an AC microgrid can be cast as a linear error-correction problem even though the microgrid dynamics are nonlinear. In the lifted model over K time steps, corrupted measurements satisfy Y = ΦX[0] + ΨE, where E stacks the attack signals and the trigonometric coupling errors ϵij = (1−cos(ei−ej), sin(ei−ej)). By choosing an annihilating matrix Ω with ΩΦ = 0, the operator obtains ΩY = ΩΨE and solves an $\ell^1$-minimization problem to recover E; using the recovered E, X[0] follows from the full-rank part of the system. The paper argues that this recovers the attack signal exactly and hence the dynamic states exactly, for attacks that change over time and follow no particular statistical model. Numerical results for two attack types on a modified 33-bus system support the claim by showing zero estimation error.

Load-bearing premise

The result presupposes that the combined error the decoder must recover stays sparse enough, and that the decoding matrix has the needed rank property, for the specific microgrid and attack pattern; the paper does not prove this for the nonlinear terms, which spread nonzero errors onto every line connected to an attacked bus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A microgrid operator using this estimator can treat corrupted synchrophasor streams as usable: recover the attack signal, subtract it, and compute control commands from clean states.
  • The estimator covers attacks that change over time and follow no particular statistical model, so it applies to communication failures as well as deliberate injection.
  • The decoder handles inverter-interfaced power supplies and frequency-dependent loads through the reduced trigonometric error representation, not just synchronous generator states.
  • Pairing the secure decoder with a Kalman filter filters out occasional decoding errors and measurement noise, making the scheme suitable for noisy PMU environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next calculation is the exact sparsity of the reduced error vector as a function of which buses are attacked; because each attacked bus makes the nonlinear error terms nonzero on all incident lines, the effective number of nonzero entries can exceed the number of attacked sensors, and knowing this threshold would tell operators how many simultaneous attacks the decoder can survive.
  • The same lifting-and-annihilation construction could transfer to other network models with sinusoidal power-flow coupling, such as inverter-dominated islanded grids, whenever the measured angles enter the coupling terms in a separable way.
  • The numerical study covers five corrupted measurements out of nine or fifty; mapping the full region of exactly recoverable attack sets on the 33-bus topology would turn the method into a placement tool for securing the most critical PMU feeds.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a secure dynamic state estimator for AC microgrids under sensor and communication attacks. The microgrid is modeled with a structure-preserving model for synchronous generators, inverter-interfaced power supplies, and loads. The nonlinear sinusoidal coupling terms are algebraically rewritten so that attacks enter through the error-correction variables epsilon_c and epsilon_s, defined as 1 - cos(e_i - e_j) and sin(e_i - e_j), respectively. After discretization and stacking K time steps, the corrupted measurements are written as Y = Phi X[0] + Psi E, and an l1-minimization decoder is applied after annihilating Phi to recover the composite error vector E. Numerical simulations on a modified IEEE 33-bus microgrid with five randomly attacked measurements per time step show that the displayed rotor angles, speeds, and attack signals are reconstructed with what appears to be zero error. The conclusion states that the microgrid operator can perfectly estimate the dynamic states under cyber attack.

Significance. If the claimed recovery guarantee were established, this would be a useful advance: it extends secure state estimation to a nonlinear structure-preserving microgrid model without restricting controllers to feedback linearization, and the algebraic rewriting of the sinusoidal terms is elegant. The numerical demonstrations are suggestive. However, the central theoretical step, exact recovery of the composite error vector E from the l1 minimization in equation (28), is not justified, because the sparsity of E and the required rank or RIP conditions are neither proved nor verified for the 61-bus example. The contribution is therefore conditional on supplying the missing recovery analysis or a credible numerical certificate of the recovery conditions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (18)-(19), (25)-(28)] The sparsity assumption on the composite vector E is not justified. E contains both the measurement attack entries E[k] and the nonlinear edge variables epsilon_c and epsilon_s. A single attacked measurement at bus i makes these two variables nonzero on every edge incident to i, so a bus of degree d contributes up to 2d nonzeros to the epsilon part of E for each time step k. Thus the support size s of E can be substantially larger than qK, where q is the number of attacked scalar measurement entries and K is the stacking horizon. Lemma 1 and the l1 decoder in (13) require s to be bounded and all subsets of 2s columns of the annihilating matrix to be full rank; the paper neither bounds the support of E in terms of q and the network topology nor verifies these matrix conditions for the 61-bus network. This is load-bearing for the claim of perfect state and attack recovery.
  2. [Section II.C, Lemma 2; Section III.A after Eq. (28)] Lemma 2 is stated and proved only for the linear system (8) with arbitrary sparse attack vectors e[k]. It does not apply to the nonlinear composite equation (28) unless one proves that the matrix Omega Psi satisfies the required full-rank or RIP conditions for the actual microgrid. The reference to [23, Theorem 1] is not a substitute: the theorem is not stated, its hypotheses are not checked, and [23] addresses a different system and setting. Without such a proof or a numerical verification of the rank condition for the specific topology and attack patterns, the abstract and Section V conclusion that the operator can perfectly estimate the dynamic states is unsupported.
  3. [Section IV, Figs. 3-6] The numerical evidence is not strong enough to support the perfect-recovery claim. Only one random attack realization per scenario is shown, and the evaluation is qualitative: no quantitative error metrics, no Monte Carlo trials, no sweep over the number of attacked sensors, and no report of the actual support size of E including the epsilon terms. The reader therefore cannot determine whether the examples operate below the sparsity threshold required by Lemma 1. The paper should report the true support of E, verify the rank or RIP condition for the matrix Omega Psi used in the simulations, and test attack regimes around and above the claimed sparsity threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Section IV text] The title and several places in the text contain typos, such as Microgirds, micorgird, and fictious; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV, first paragraph] The definition of the inverter-interfaced power supply buses reads N(I) = {1,...,33} excluding the union of N(L) and S(L); the set S(L) is undefined and should likely be N(S).
  3. [Section III.A, before Eq. (28)] The stated dimension of the annihilating matrix Omega, R^{(K|N|-2|N|) x K(|N|+m)}, is inconsistent with the left-null-space dimension of Phi, which is K(|N|+m) minus (|N|+2m). The formula appears to omit a term involving m and should be corrected.
  4. [Section IV.A, Fig. 4] The claim that the secure estimator correctly estimates the attack signal throughout the simulation is based on color plots; a quantitative error measure or a numerical table would make the result verifiable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation supplies the recovery guarantee, but the core l1 decoder is not fitted to the data; no equation-level circularity.

  1. other [Section III.A, paragraph after Eq. (28)]
    "In [23], Theorem 1 provides a sufficient condition for perfect recovery of the system states against sensor attack and describes estimator design by using a state feedback controller. However, in the current setting, since there is a limitation to manipulate the coding matrix, we combine our secure estimator with a Kalman Filter (KF) to improve its practical performance [23]."

    The perfect-recovery guarantee for the nonlinear microgrid setting is attributed to [23], whose authors include two of the present authors (Chang and Hu), and the present paper does not verify the theorem's hypotheses for the composite vector E = [E[0];...;E[K-1];epsilon[0];...;epsilon[K-1]] used in Eq. (25)-(28). This is a self-citation invoked to supply a missing guarantee rather than an independently derived proof. It is not a full equivalence-by-construction, but it is a mild load-bearing self-citation because the central 'perfectly estimate' claim relies on the prior work's recovery condition without checking sparsity or the full-rank/RIP requirements.

full rationale

The derivation from the discretized microgrid model (17) through the trigonometric identity (18)-(19) to the composite equation (25) is algebraic, and the estimator solves an l1-minimization problem (28) directly for the stacked error vector E; no parameter is fitted to the output and then renamed as a prediction. Simulating the same model and recovering the simulated attack is an inversion test, not a circular prediction. The main issues are correctness gaps rather than circularity: the sparsity of E is not established (epsilon_ij^c=1-cos(e_i-e_j) and epsilon_ij^s=sin(e_i-e_j) are nonzero on every edge incident to an attacked bus, so the support can grow with degree), the full-rank/RIP condition on Omega-tilde-Psi is not verified for the 61-bus topology, and Psi and the U terms in Eq. (24)-(25) are constructed from possibly corrupted measurements. The self-citation to [23] after Eq. (28) is the only mild circularity-like element; it supplies the recovery guarantee without verifying its hypotheses. These are legitimate concerns, but they do not make Eq. (28)'s output equal to its input by definition, so the circularity score remains low.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it postulates a cyber-layer model (secured versus non-secured paths) and attack assumptions (A.1-A.3). These are modeling assumptions, not invented entities, and are not treated as falsifiable predictions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Structure-preserving microgrid model of equations (1)-(5) (synchronous generator swing with governor, inverter droop, load frequency response) accurately represents the real microgrid.
    The estimator is derived from this exact model; if the true system has different dynamics (e.g., voltage-dependent loads, nonlinear inverter controllers, network transients), the state-space model used for recovery is invalid. See Section II.A.
  • domain assumption Voltage magnitudes are constant (set to 1 pu) and reactive power is ignored.
    Stated in Sections II.A and IV; this removes reactive power and voltage dynamics from the model. If voltage variations are significant, the constant-voltage assumption breaks the derivation because the coupling coefficients gamma_ij[k] are treated as known time-varying but are computed from measured, possibly corrupted, values.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective error vector E in (25) is sparse enough and the matrix tilde Psi satisfies the full-rank/RIP conditions for exact l1 recovery.
    The paper invokes Lemma 1 for the linear case but does not verify the 2s-column full-rank condition for the microgrid annihilating matrix, nor does it bound the sparsity of E after the nonlinear eps terms are included. See Section III.A around equation (28).
  • domain assumption Forward Euler discretization with step delta=1/60 s gives an accurate enough model of the continuous-time dynamics for recovery.
    The estimator uses the discretized model; if delta is too large, the state-space model (17)-(22) diverges from the true continuous-time system. The paper picks delta=1/60 but provides no stability or error analysis. See Sections III.A and IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure State Estimation and Control for Cyber Security of AC Microgrids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Y36Y7XW

@misc{pith2026190805843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure State Estimation and Control for Cyber Security of AC Microgrids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Y36Y7XW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05843}
}
read the original abstract

A timely, accurate, and secure dynamic state estimation is needed for reliable monitoring and efficient control of microgrids. The synchrophasor technology enables us to obtain synchronized measurements in real-time and to develop dynamic state estimators for real-time monitoring and control of microgrids. In this study, we consider an AC microgrid comprising several synchronous generators and inverter-interface power supplies, and focus on securely estimating the dynamic states of the microgrid from a set of corrupted data. We propose a dynamic state estimator which enables the microgrid operator to reconstruct the dynamic states of the microgrid from a set of corrupted data. Finally, we consider an AC microgrid with the same topology as the IEEE 33-bus distribution system, and numerically show that the proposed secure estimation algorithm can accurately reconstruct the attack signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A graphical depiction of the cyber network model: For simplicity, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An AC microgrid comprising m = 3 synchronous generators, n = 25 inverter-interfaced power supplies, and l = 5 load buses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase angles and rotor speeds of the synchronous generators under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase angles and rotor speeds of the synchronous generators under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: True and estimated attack signals: The rows and columns correspond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Secure estimation based Kalman Filter for cyber physical systems against sensor attacks,

    Y . H. Chang, Q. Hu, and C. J. Tomlin, “Secure estimation based Kalman Filter for cyber physical systems against sensor attacks,” Automatica, 95, pp.399-412, Sep. 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    MicroGrids,

    R. Lasseter, “MicroGrids,” in IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 1, pp. 305--308, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Microgrids,

    N. Hatziagyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay, “Microgrids,” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 78–94, 2007. Fig. 6. True and estimated attack signals: The rows and columns correspond to measurements and time steps, respectively. In the subfigures, the color indicates the attack signal: red is a positive attack, green is a negative ...

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    Ili ´c and S

    M. Ili ´c and S. Liu, Hierarchical Power Systems Control: Its V alue in a Changing Industry . Springer, 1996

    work page 1996

  5. [4]

    Definition and classification of power system stability IEEE/CIGRE joint task force on stability terms and definitions,

    P. Kundur, et al., “Definition and classification of power system stability IEEE/CIGRE joint task force on stability terms and definitions,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1387–1401, Aug. 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    Power System Static-State Estimation, Part I: Exact Model,

    F. C. Schweppe and J. Wildes, “Power System Static-State Estimation, Part I: Exact Model,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems , vol. PAS-89, no. 1, pp. 120–125, Jan. 1970

    work page 1970

  7. [6]

    Abur and A

    A. Abur and A. G. Exp ´osito, Power System State Estimation: Theory and Application . Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    Power System Dynamic State Estimation: Motivations, Definitions, Methodologies and Future Work,

    J. Zhao, et al. , “Power System Dynamic State Estimation: Motivations, Definitions, Methodologies and Future Work,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    A Dynamic State Estimator for Dynamic Security Assessment,

    H. Modir and R. A. Schlueter, “A Dynamic State Estimator for Dynamic Security Assessment,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems , vol. PAS-100, no. 11, pp. 4644–4652, Nov. 1981

    1981

  2. [9]

    Dynamic State Estimation-Based Protec- tion: Status and Promise,

    A. P. S. Meliopoulos, et al. , “Dynamic State Estimation-Based Protec- tion: Status and Promise,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 320–330, Feb. 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    Consensus computation in unreliable networks: A system theoretic approach,

    F. Pasqualetti, A. Bicchi, and F. Bullo, “Consensus computation in unreliable networks: A system theoretic approach,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 90–104, Jan. 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    Attack detection and identifica- tion in cyber-physical systems,

    F. Pasqualetti, F. Dorfler, and F. Bullo, “Attack detection and identifica- tion in cyber-physical systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 2715–2729, Nov. 2013

    2013

  5. [12]

    Detection of faults and attacks including false data injection attack in smart grid using kalman filter,

    K. Manandhar, X. Cao, F. Hu, and Y . Liu, “Detection of faults and attacks including false data injection attack in smart grid using kalman filter,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 370–379, 2014

    2014

  6. [13]

    Graphical methods for defense against false- data injection attacks on power system state estimation,

    S. Bi, and Y . J. Zhang, “Graphical methods for defense against false- data injection attacks on power system state estimation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1216–1227, May 2014

    2014

  7. [14]

    Detecting false data injection attacks on power grid by sparse optimization,

    L. Liu, M. Esmalifalak, Q. Ding, V . A. Emesih, and Z. Han, “Detecting false data injection attacks on power grid by sparse optimization,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 612–621, March 2014

    2014

  8. [15]

    Detecting integrity attacks on scada systems,

    Y . Mo, R. Chabukswar, and B. Sinopoli, “Detecting integrity attacks on scada systems,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1396–1407, July 2014

    2014

  9. [16]

    A game theoretic approach to decision and analysis in network intrusion detection,

    T. Alpcan, and T. Basar, “A game theoretic approach to decision and analysis in network intrusion detection,” in Proc. 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , vol. 3, Dec 2003, pp. 2595–2600

    2003

  10. [17]

    A DER attack-mitigation differential game for smart grid security analysis,

    P. Srikantha and D. Kundur, “A DER attack-mitigation differential game for smart grid security analysis,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1476–1485, May 2016

    2016

  11. [18]

    Basseville, I

    M. Basseville, I. V . Nikiforov et al. , Detection of abrupt changes: theory and application . Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, 1993, vol. 104

    1993

  12. [19]

    Distributed 𝓁2-gain output-feedback control of homogeneous and heterogeneous systems,

    Q. Jiao, H. Modares, F. L. Lewis, S. Xu, and L. Xie, “Distributed 𝓁2-gain output-feedback control of homogeneous and heterogeneous systems,” Automatica, vol. 71, pp. 361–368, 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    Synchrony in Networked Microgrids Under Attacks,

    S. Abhinav, H. Modares, F. L. Lewis, F. Ferrese, and A. Davoudi, “Synchrony in Networked Microgrids Under Attacks,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 6731–6741, Nov. 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    Secure estimation and control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks,

    H. Fawzi, P. Tabuada, and S. Diggavi, “Secure estimation and control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1454–1467, June 2014

    2014

  15. [22]

    Event-Triggered State Observers for Sparse Sensor Noise/Attacks,

    Y . Shoukry and P. Tabuada, “Event-Triggered State Observers for Sparse Sensor Noise/Attacks,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control , no. 99, pp. 1–13, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Secure State Estimation and Control for Cyber Security of the Nonlinear Power Systems,

    Q. Hu, D. Fooladivanda, Y . H. Chang, and C. J. Tomlin, “Secure State Estimation and Control for Cyber Security of the Nonlinear Power Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1310–1321, Sept. 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Secure state estimation for cyber physical systems under sensor attacks: a satisfiability modulo theory approach,

    Y . Shoukry, P. Nuzzo, A. Puggelli, A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. A. Seshia, and P. Tabuada, “Secure state estimation for cyber physical systems under sensor attacks: a satisfiability modulo theory approach,” arXiv pre-print, Dec. 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Robustness of attack-resilient state estimators,

    M. Pajic, J. Weimer, N. Bezzo, P. Tabuada, O. Sokolsky, I. Lee, and G. Pappas, “Robustness of attack-resilient state estimators,” in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS) , 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Doubly robust smoothing of dynamical processes via outlier sparsity constraints,

    S. Farahmand, G. B. Giannakis, and D. Angelosante, “Doubly robust smoothing of dynamical processes via outlier sparsity constraints,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing , vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 4529-4543, Oct. 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Stability analysis of islanded micro- grids with dynamic loads,

    X. Zhang, J. Chen, and C. Wang, “Stability analysis of islanded micro- grids with dynamic loads,” in Proc. IEEE 14th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics, and Vision , pp. 1-6, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    A Generic load model for simulation studies of microgrids,

    A. Haddadi, A. Yazdani, G. Joos, and B. Boulet, “A Generic load model for simulation studies of microgrids,” in Proc. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting , pp. 1-5, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Distributed Control Techniques in Microgrids,

    M. Yazdanian, and A. Mehrizi-Sani, “Distributed Control Techniques in Microgrids,” in IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid , vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2901–2909, Nov. 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Microgrid Protection,

    A. Hooshyar, and R. Iravani, “Microgrid Protection,” in Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 1332–1353, July 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    A Coordinated Multi-Switch Attack for Cascading Failures in Smart Grid,

    S. Liu, B. Chen, T. Zourntos, D. Kundur, and K. Butler-Purry, “A Coordinated Multi-Switch Attack for Cascading Failures in Smart Grid,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1183–1195, May 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis,

    A. R. Bergen, and D. J. Hill, “A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis,” Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, no. 1, pp. 25–35, 1981

    1981

  26. [34]

    P. W. Sauer and M. A. Pai, Power System Dynamics and Stability . Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Available at http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/CIPStandards.aspx

  28. [36]

    Stable Signal Recovery from Incomplete and Inaccurate Measurements,

    E. Candes, J. Romberg, and T. Tao, “Stable Signal Recovery from Incomplete and Inaccurate Measurements,” Communications on pure and applied mathematics, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 1207–1223, 2006

    2006

  29. [37]

    Sparse network identifiability via Compressed Sensing,

    D. Hayden, Y . H. Chang, J. Goncalves, and C. Tomlin, “Sparse network identifiability via Compressed Sensing,” Automatica, vol. 68, pp. 9–17, Jun. 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Decoding by linear programming,

    E. J. Candes, and T. Tao, “Decoding by linear programming,” IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory , vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 4203–4215, Dec. 2005

    2005

  31. [39]

    Optimally sparse representation in general (nonorthogonal) dictionaries via l1 minimization,

    D. L. Donoho, and M. Elad, “Optimally sparse representation in general (nonorthogonal) dictionaries via l1 minimization,” in Proc. National Academy of Sciences , pp. 2197–2202, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    A generalized uncertainty principle and sparse representation in pairs of bases,

    M. Elad, and A. M. Bruckstein, “A generalized uncertainty principle and sparse representation in pairs of bases,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2558–2567, 2002

    2002

  33. [41]

    Sparse representations in unions of bases,

    R. Gribonval, and M. Nielsen, “Sparse representations in unions of bases,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory , vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 3320– 3325, 2003

    2003

  34. [42]

    Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approxima- tion,

    J.A. Tropp, “Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approxima- tion,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory , vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2231– 2242, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    A Divide-by-Difference- Filter Based Algorithm for Estimation of Generator Rotor Angle Uti- lizing Synchrophasor Measurements,

    P. Tripathy, S. C. Srivastava, and S. N. Singh, “A Divide-by-Difference- Filter Based Algorithm for Estimation of Generator Rotor Angle Uti- lizing Synchrophasor Measurements,” in IEEE Transactions on Instru- mentation and Measurement , vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1562–1570, June 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    MLP/RBF neural- networkbased online global model identification of synchronous gen- erator,

    G. K. Venayagamoorthy, and R. G. Harley, “MLP/RBF neural- networkbased online global model identification of synchronous gen- erator,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1685–1695, Dec. 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Estimation of rotor angles of synchronous machines using artificial neural networks and local PMU-based quantities,

    A. D. Angel, P. Geurts, D. Ernst, M. G. Glavic, and L. Wehenkel, “Estimation of rotor angles of synchronous machines using artificial neural networks and local PMU-based quantities,” Int. J. Neurocomput. , vol. 70, no. 16–18, pp. 2668–2678, Oct. 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    Direct computation of generator internal states from terminal measurements,

    V . Venkatasubramanian, and R. G. Kavasseri, “Direct computation of generator internal states from terminal measurements,” in Proc. 37th Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. , 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,

    M. E. Baran, and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, Apr 1989

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.