Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 33 references

SenseFlow: A Physics-Informed and Self-Ensembling Iterative Framework for Power Flow Estimation

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SenseFlow claims that an iterative, physics-informed graph network estimates power flows on IEEE 39-, 118-, and 300-bus systems with voltage-magnitude RMSE below $10^{-3}$, phase-angle RMSE below $10^{-2}$, and N-2 contingency screening…

desk verdict A competent engineering contribution with a plausible mechanism and strong reported gains, but the evaluation is narrower than the claims and the iterative loop's generalization is under-analyzed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12302 v1 pith:FY7VMSAN submitted 2025-05-18 cs.LG

Zhen Zhao , Wenqi Huang , Zicheng Wang , Jiaxuan Hou , Peng Li , Lei Bai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords powerflowestimationgraphneuralnetworkphysics-informedlossself-ensemblingiterativevirtualnodeattentionslackbuscontingencyanalysisIEEEtestsystems
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

Power flow estimation—finding the voltage magnitude and phase angle at every bus—is a frequent, computationally heavy step in grid operations, and conventional solvers are slow when many contingency scenarios must be screened. SenseFlow claims that a graph neural network can reach high precision by treating power flow as an iterative correction process rather than a one-shot regression: a physics-informed network predicts small updates to the voltage state, a self-ensembling teacher built by exponential moving average refines the input for the next loop, and the power-balance equations supply both an extra loss and the mismatch features. On IEEE 39-, 118-, and 300-bus systems, the paper reports RMSE below $10^{-3}$ for voltage magnitudes and below $10^{-2}$ for phase angles, beating six graph-convolution baselines. The same framework keeps $10^{-3}$-level accuracy when reactive-power measurements are missing—a setting conventional methods cannot handle—and runs N-2 contingency analysis 3–5 times faster than a standard solver on the larger grids. The value, if the results hold, is a data-driven route to high-volume contingency screening and state estimation for larger, renewables-heavy networks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the eight-loop SeIter correction cycle. FlowNet is a hetero-graph network—PQ, PV, and Slack buses are distinct node types—whose Virtual Node Attention (VNA) module builds a global node from average- and max-pooled features of all buses and uses cross-attention to broadcast that system-wide context back to every node without adding edges. Its Slack-Gated Feed-Forward (SGF) module concatenates each node's features with the slack node's features, passes them through a gated MLP, and adds a residual connection, so the phase-reference bus influences every prediction while local features survive. The equation loss $L_{\text{equ}}$ computes $\Delta P$ and $\Delta Q$ from the predicted state and the admittance matrix and penalizes them, so the physical power-balance equations act simultaneously as a training signal and as input features for the next iteration.

What would settle it

Train SenseFlow once, then run the SeIter loop on test grids with topologies far from the training distribution—for example, many simultaneous line outages or a partially re-meshed network—and record per-loop RMSE; if voltage or angle error rises with loop count instead of falling, the iterative refinement is overfitting to the training distribution of topologies rather than converging in general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's terms, the central discovery is that replacing end-to-end regression with iterated self-corrected prediction lets a physics-informed graph network converge to voltage states accurate enough to compete with numerical solvers. In each of eight loops, FlowNet takes the current voltage estimates and the power mismatches $\Delta P$, $\Delta Q$ from the balance equations, predicts corrections, and is trained with both the ground-truth L1 loss and the equation loss; the EMA teacher then generates the estimates that seed the next loop. The architecture makes two deliberate choices about power-system structure: Virtual Node Attention pools features from all buses into a global node and attends it back to every bus, overcoming sparse-graph reachability, and Slack-Gated Feed-Forward gates the slack bus's features into every other bus, encoding its role as the system-wide phase reference. The complete system reaches RMSE below $10^{-3}$ in voltage magnitude and below $10^{-2}$ in phase angle across IEEE 39-, 118-, and 300-bus cases, and the ablations show the SeIter loop, not the architecture alone, is responsible for most of the improvement.

Load-bearing premise

SenseFlow's reported accuracy depends on the assumption that when the model's own corrected voltage estimates are fed back as inputs for the next loop, errors do not compound on held-out topologies; the paper does not provide a convergence or out-of-distribution stability analysis of this feedback loop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wrapping any of the six tested graph-convolution backbones in the SeIter loop cuts phase-angle RMSE by roughly an order of magnitude, so the iterative self-correction is the dominant source of accuracy, not the particular convolution layer.
  • A grid operator with missing reactive-power measurements, where a conventional solver cannot form a well-posed problem, can still obtain voltage-state estimates at the $10^{-3}$ level.
  • Because N-2 contingency screening runs 3–5 times faster than a conventional solver on 118- and 300-bus systems, the practical cost of contingency analysis shifts from per-case solving to one-time model training per grid.
  • The equation-loss term keeps predictions consistent with active and reactive power balance, giving the network a physics-checkable property that pure regression models lack.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not established by the paper: the test topologies, while strictly distinct from training topologies, are drawn from the same generation process; a genuinely different distribution of outages, load profiles, or parameter ranges could reveal whether the feedback loop stays stable outside its training manifold.
  • A transferable recipe suggested by the result: for physics-constrained regression on sparse graphs, feed the residual of the governing equations back as an input feature and stabilise iteration with an EMA teacher, instead of only penalising the residual in the loss.
  • A natural stress test the paper leaves open is cross-size generalisation—training on one IEEE system and evaluating on another—since VNA and SGF are size-agnostic while the GCN layers may not be.
  • The missing-Q robustness is demonstrated only for absent reactive power; missing or noisy active power, voltage setpoints, or topology entries would be a harder test of the framework's claim to handle incomplete information.
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

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SenseFlow, a graph-neural-network framework for power-flow estimation that combines a physics-informed loss (power-balance residuals) with a self-ensembling iterative refinement loop (SeIter). The architecture introduces a Virtual Node Attention module and a Slack-Gated Feed-Forward module to handle sparse grid connectivity and the special role of the slack bus. The authors evaluate on synthetic IEEE 39-, 118-, and 300-bus datasets, report ablations, demonstrate robustness to missing reactive-power values, and compare computational time for N-2 contingency analysis against a conventional solver. The central claim is state-of-the-art estimation accuracy across all three systems, with RMSE below 1e-3 for voltage magnitude and below 1e-2 for phase angle.

Significance. The combination of an externally evaluated power-balance equation loss with an iterative residual-feedback loop is a sensible and potentially useful direction for data-driven power-flow estimation. The paper also addresses two domain-specific issues that are often underexplored in GNN power-flow work: sparse global communication and the asymmetric role of the slack bus. The empirical gains over generic graph-convolution backbones are large, and the missing-Q experiments address a practically relevant failure mode of classical solvers. However, the significance as stated depends on the SeIter loop being stable and on the comparisons being made against appropriate power-flow-specific baselines, neither of which is currently established. The paper would be strengthened by reporting hyperparameters, variance estimates, and a more direct evaluation of the iterative operator's behavior under distribution shift.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3, Tables 1-2] The headline claim of state-of-the-art performance is not supported by the choice of baselines. All compared methods are generic graph-convolution layers (GraphConv, GINEConv, SageConv, ResGatedGraphConv, GatConv, TransformerConv), whereas the related work cites power-flow-specific and physics-informed alternatives such as PowerFlowNet [10], the typed-GNN method of Lopez-Garcia and Dominguez-Navarro [21], and the physics-guided approach of Hu et al. [7]. Without comparisons to these methods, the SOTA claim in Section 5 and the abstract overreaches. Please add these baselines or explicitly reframe the claim as improvement over generic GNN backbones.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 4(a), Table 3] SeIter is the largest contributor to the reported gains (e.g., Table 3 shows PQVa RMSE dropping from 0.0465 to 0.0061 on IEEE 39-bus when SeIter is added), but the paper provides no convergence or contraction analysis for the feedback operator, and the only loop-scaling evidence is average RMSE versus loop count in Figure 4(a). An average that decreases can hide a minority of samples whose errors grow, and the test topologies are generated under the same perturbation procedure as the training data (Section 4.1). Therefore the claim that iterative gains will transfer to real grids is not established. Please report per-sample error distributions across loop counts and evaluate on topologies that are outside the 1-2 line-disconnection perturbation distribution.
  3. [Equations (1) and (6), Section 4.2] The weighting hyperparameters for the two key training terms are never reported: the equation-loss weight lambda in Eq. (1) and the EMA momentum alpha in Eq. (6). These parameters directly control the physics-loss contribution and the self-ensembling dynamics, both of which are central to the method. Without reporting their values, the ablation attribution in Table 3 is not reproducible. Please report the chosen values and, ideally, a sensitivity analysis showing that the results are not critically dependent on them.
  4. [Tables 1-3 and Figure 4(b)] No error bars, standard deviations, or number of random seeds are reported for any of the experimental results. Several comparative margins are extremely small (e.g., Table 1, IEEE 118-bus PQVm: SenseFlow 0.00009817 versus ResGatedGraphConv+SeIter 0.00007869), so the claimed superiority is not statistically supported. Please add variance information across multiple training runs and, where margins are small, a significance test.
  5. [Section 4.4, Figure 4(c)] The N-2 contingency timing comparison reports only wall-clock time for SenseFlow versus PyPower. It does not state the number of N-2 scenarios, the accuracy of SenseFlow on those scenarios, or whether critical violations are missed. Comparing wall-clock time of an approximate estimator to an exact solver without an accuracy or coverage metric conflates speed with correctness. Please clarify the experimental setup and report contingency-level accuracy (e.g., missed violations or error relative to the solver) alongside runtime.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Equation (5)] The summation index in Eq. (5) is written as i, but it should be j=1 to N, matching Eq. (4).
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (10)] The Slack-Gated Feed-Forward paragraph says it is taking the PV node as an example, but the equations use FPQ rather than FPV. Please clarify which node type the equations refer to.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 3 caption] There is a typo in the Figure 3 caption: 'THe whole hetero-graph' should be 'The whole hetero-graph.'
  4. [Section 4.4, paragraph on incomplete inputs] The phrase 'inactive power' should be 'reactive power.'
  5. [Table 3] The checkmark/row formatting of Table 3 is difficult to parse; the rows do not clearly indicate which components are active in each configuration. Please reformat the table so each row has an explicit configuration.
  6. [Section 4.2] The paper states that the code 'will be available' but does not provide a working repository at review time. Please include a link to the actual code repository in the revised version.
  7. [Section 3.2, Figure 2] It is not fully clear whether the self-ensembling teacher model is used only for generating inputs to the next training loop or also for inference. Please specify the inference-time procedure explicitly.
  8. [Section 5, Limitation paragraph] The limitation paragraph appropriately concedes that noisy and asynchronous real-world inputs remain open, but this concession should also be reflected in the abstract and conclusions, which currently state that missing-input cases are handled robustly without qualification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the physics residual is an external constraint, ground-truth supervision is independent, and SeIter is an empirically evaluated refinement loop rather than a definitional identity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the predicted PQ/PV voltage magnitudes and phase angles are trained with two independent signals. The ground-truth loss in Eq. (3) compares predictions against Matpower-generated labels, while the equation loss in Eqs. (2), (4), and (5) computes active/reactive power mismatches from the known admittance matrix and the current prediction; it is not computed from the target voltages, so it is a physical constraint rather than a circular fit. The SeIter loop feeds the EMA teacher's previous output back as the next input, but no equation defines the final prediction as equal to that input by construction; it is an iterative refinement operator whose benefits are reported empirically in Table 3 and Fig. 4(a). The paper does not rely on any load-bearing self-citation: the reference list contains no works by the present authors, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work. The acknowledged limitations about noisy/asynchronous real-world inputs and the absence of a convergence or distribution-shift analysis for SeIter are correctness and robustness concerns, not evidence that a prediction reduces to its inputs by definition. No specific circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard AC power-flow physics, a synthetic Matpower dataset, and several hand-chosen hyperparameters that are not fully reported. No physically new entity is postulated; the virtual node and slack-gated module are architectural devices. The main unexamined assumption is the stability of the iterative feedback loop on out-of-distribution topologies.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (equation loss weight) = not reported
    Scalar in Eq. (1) balancing ground-truth and power-balance losses; value chosen by hand but never stated.
  • alpha (EMA momentum) = not reported
    Momentum in the teacher update, Eq. (6); controls self-ensembling behavior and is not specified.
  • Number of SeIter loops = 8
    Loop count in Fig. 4(a); chosen as a default trade-off between accuracy and inference cost, a hand-selected hyperparameter.
  • Network depth K and embedding dimension = K=4; 128 for 39/118-Bus, 256 for 300-Bus
    Model capacity choices in Sec. 4.2; not derived, affect all results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard AC power flow equations (Eqs. 4-5) correctly describe the steady-state behavior of the test systems.
    Used for computing power-balance residuals in Lequ and for generating training data via Matpower; this is the physical model the network is trained to satisfy.
  • domain assumption Matpower-generated IEEE test cases with uniform load and branch perturbations are representative of power-flow estimation conditions.
    Section 4.1 defines the synthetic dataset; the reported performance is only meaningful if this distribution reflects the intended deployment setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative residual-feedback process converges on held-out topologies when the network was trained with teacher EMA.
    SeIter assumes stable feedback when feeding model outputs back as inputs (Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4a); no convergence guarantee is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-truth supervision plus the power-balance equation loss is sufficient to teach physical consistency beyond the training set.
    The physics-informed claim rests on Lequ improving generalization, but the paper does not measure physical residual error on test data.
  • standard math Backpropagation and Adam optimization train the network as expected.
    The paper relies on standard deep learning machinery without proving convergence or optimality.
invented entities (2)
  • Virtual node in VNA
    purpose: Aggregates pooled features of all nodes to distribute global context via cross-attention while preserving graph structure.
    An architectural construct, not a physical entity; no falsifiable prediction outside the model's internal representation.
  • Slack-gated feature fusion
    purpose: Concatenates slack node features with each PQ/PV node through a gated network to amplify slack influence on angle predictions.
    A computational mechanism; its benefit is only measured indirectly through downstream RMSE, not as an independently observable object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SenseFlow: A Physics-Informed and Self-Ensembling Iterative Framework for Power Flow Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FY7VMSAN

@misc{pith2026250512302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SenseFlow: A Physics-Informed and Self-Ensembling Iterative Framework for Power Flow Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FY7VMSAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12302}
}
read the original abstract

Power flow estimation plays a vital role in ensuring the stability and reliability of electrical power systems, particularly in the context of growing network complexities and renewable energy integration. However, existing studies often fail to adequately address the unique characteristics of power systems, such as the sparsity of network connections and the critical importance of the unique Slack node, which poses significant challenges in achieving high-accuracy estimations. In this paper, we present SenseFlow, a novel physics-informed and self-ensembling iterative framework that integrates two main designs, the Physics-Informed Power Flow Network (FlowNet) and Self-Ensembling Iterative Estimation (SeIter), to carefully address the unique properties of the power system and thereby enhance the power flow estimation. Specifically, SenseFlow enforces the FlowNet to gradually predict high-precision voltage magnitudes and phase angles through the iterative SeIter process. On the one hand, FlowNet employs the Virtual Node Attention and Slack-Gated Feed-Forward modules to facilitate efficient global-local communication in the face of network sparsity and amplify the influence of the Slack node on angle predictions, respectively. On the other hand, SeIter maintains an exponential moving average of FlowNet's parameters to create a robust ensemble model that refines power state predictions throughout the iterative fitting process. Experimental results demonstrate that SenseFlow outperforms existing methods, providing a promising solution for high-accuracy power flow estimation across diverse grid configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Comparison of the number of nodes and edges across various IEEE standard systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of our Self-ensembling Iterative Estimation (SeIter). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of our FlowNet, which mainly consists of two main modules, the Virtual Node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) we examine the impact of the iterative loop on the IEEE 39-Bus system. The number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Powerflownet: Power flow approximation using message passing graph neural networks

    Nan Lin, Stavros Orfanoudakis, Nathan Ordonez Cardenas, Juan S Giraldo, and Pedro P Vergara. Powerflownet: Power flow approximation using message passing graph neural networks. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 160:110112, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [21]

    Power flow analysis via typed graph neural networks

    Tania B Lopez-Garcia and José A Domínguez-Navarro. Power flow analysis via typed graph neural networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 117:105567, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [7]

    Physics-guided deep neural networks for power flow analysis

    Xinyue Hu, Haoji Hu, Saurabh Verma, and Zhi-Li Zhang. Physics-guided deep neural networks for power flow analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 36(3):2082–2092, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [1]

    Artificial intelligence and machine learning for energy consumption and production in emerging markets: a review

    David Mhlanga. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for energy consumption and production in emerging markets: a review. Energies, 16(2):745, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [2]

    Review of machine learning techniques for optimal power flow

    Hooman Khaloie, Mihaly Dolanyi, Jean-Francois Toubeau, and François Vallée. Review of machine learning techniques for optimal power flow. Available at SSRN 4681955, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [3]

    Physics- informed graphical neural network for power system state estimation

    Quang-Ha Ngo, Bang LH Nguyen, Tuyen V Vu, Jianhua Zhang, and Tuan Ngo. Physics- informed graphical neural network for power system state estimation. Applied Energy , 358:122602, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [4]

    Developments in the newton raphson power flow formulation based on current injections

    Vander Menengoy da Costa, Nelson Martins, and Jose Luiz R Pereira. Developments in the newton raphson power flow formulation based on current injections. IEEE Transactions on power systems, 14(4):1320–1326, 1999

    work page 1999

  8. [5]

    Load flow analysis by gauss-seidel method; a survey

    Ali M Eltamaly and Amer Nasr A Elghaffar. Load flow analysis by gauss-seidel method; a survey. Int J Mech Electr Comput Technol (IJMEC), PISSN, pages 2411–6173, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 33 references
  1. [6]

    Data-driven power flow calculation method: A lifting dimension linear regression approach

    Li Guo, Yuxuan Zhang, Xialin Li, Zhongguan Wang, Yixin Liu, Linquan Bai, and Chengshan Wang. Data-driven power flow calculation method: A lifting dimension linear regression approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 37(3):1798–1808, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    Machine learning and deep learning in energy systems: A review

    Mohammad Mahdi Forootan, Iman Larki, Rahim Zahedi, and Abolfazl Ahmadi. Machine learning and deep learning in energy systems: A review. Sustainability, 14(8):4832, 2022

    2022

  3. [9]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Physics-informed neural networks for ac optimal power flow

    Rahul Nellikkath and Spyros Chatzivasileiadis. Physics-informed neural networks for ac optimal power flow. Electric Power Systems Research, 212:108412, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Leveraging power grid topology in machine learning assisted optimal power flow

    Thomas Falconer and Letif Mones. Leveraging power grid topology in machine learning assisted optimal power flow. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 38(3):2234–2246, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    An improved backward/forward sweep load flow algorithm for radial distribution systems

    GW Chang, SY Chu, and HL Wang. An improved backward/forward sweep load flow algorithm for radial distribution systems. IEEE Transactions on power systems, 22(2):882–884, 2007

    2007

  7. [14]

    The holomorphic embedding load flow method

    Antonio Trias. The holomorphic embedding load flow method. In 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    Power flow analysis.Computational Models in Engineering, pages 67–88, 2020

    Mohammed Albadi and K V olkov. Power flow analysis.Computational Models in Engineering, pages 67–88, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    MIT Press, 2016

    Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio.Deep learning, volume 1. MIT Press, 2016. 10

    2016

  10. [17]

    Data-driven piecewise linearization for distribu- tion three-phase stochastic power flow

    Jiaqi Chen, Wenchuan Wu, and Line A Roald. Data-driven piecewise linearization for distribu- tion three-phase stochastic power flow. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 13(2):1035–1048, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Fengwen Chen, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang, and S Yu Philip. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32(1):4–24, 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    Deep learning on graphs: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(1):249–270, 2020

    Ziwei Zhang, Peng Cui, and Wenwu Zhu. Deep learning on graphs: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(1):249–270, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    A review of graph neural networks and their applications in power systems

    Wenlong Liao, Birgitte Bak-Jensen, Jayakrishnan Radhakrishna Pillai, Yuelong Wang, and Yusen Wang. A review of graph neural networks and their applications in power systems. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 10(2):345–360, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Optimal power flow using graph neural networks

    Damian Owerko, Fernando Gama, and Alejandro Ribeiro. Optimal power flow using graph neural networks. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5930–5934. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Physics embedded graph convolution neural network for power flow calculation considering uncertain injections and topology

    Maosheng Gao, Juan Yu, Zhifang Yang, and Junbo Zhao. Physics embedded graph convolution neural network for power flow calculation considering uncertain injections and topology. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Physics-informed geometric deep learning for inference tasks in power systems

    Steven de Jongh, Frederik Gielnik, Felicitas Mueller, Loris Schmit, Michael Suriyah, and Thomas Leibfried. Physics-informed geometric deep learning for inference tasks in power systems. Electric Power Systems Research, 211:108362, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Deep statistical solver for distribution system state estimation

    Benjamin Habib, Elvin Isufi, Ward van Breda, Arjen Jongepier, and Jochen L Cremer. Deep statistical solver for distribution system state estimation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks

    Christopher Morris, Martin Ritzert, Matthias Fey, William L Hamilton, Jan Eric Lenssen, Gaurav Rattan, and Martin Grohe. Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 4602–...

    2019

  19. [27]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

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

    Ray Daniel Zimmerman, Carlos Edmundo Murillo-Sánchez, and Robert John Thomas. Mat- power: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education. IEEE Transactions on power systems, 26(1):12–19, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks

    Weihua Hu, Bowen Liu, Joseph Gomes, Marinka Zitnik, Percy Liang, Vijay Pande, and Jure Leskovec. Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Residual gated graph convnets

    Xavier Bresson and Thomas Laurent. Residual gated graph convnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07553, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    How attentive are graph attention networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    Shaked Brody, Uri Alon, and Eran Yahav. How attentive are graph attention networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification

    Yunsheng Shi, Zhengjie Huang, Shikun Feng, Hui Zhong, Wenjin Wang, and Yu Sun. Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification. In Interna- tional Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. 11

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.