在统一条件下对比了多种机器学习模型在电力系统故障分类与定位中的表现。
Controlled Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Fault Classification and Localization in Power System Protection
- 使用相同数据、传感和时间窗口,公平比较不同模型性能。
- 故障分类10毫秒内准确率超98%,故障定位误差稳定在10%线路长度以内。
- 发现定位难易与电网拓扑有关,非单纯时间信息不足导致。
现代电力系统因逆变器型与分布式能源的接入而日益复杂,传统保护方案可靠性面临挑战,推动了机器学习在保护任务中的应用。然而,由于数据集、传感假设和决策时窗存在差异,现有研究结果难以直接比较。本文基于同一电磁暂态数据集,在一致的传感、时序和验证条件下,对机器学习模型在故障分类(FC)与故障定位(FL)任务中进行受控对比,采用10-50毫秒的决策窗口以反映保护相关的时间尺度。对于故障分类,最佳非线性模型在10毫秒时F1得分已超过0.98,而容量较低的模型在短时窗下性能下降,但随窗口延长逐步提升,表明早期暂态中已包含关键故障类型信息。对于故障定位,表现最优模型在所有评估时窗下定位误差均稳定在约10%的归一化线路长度,而较弱模型形成明显次优性能梯队。线路级分析显示,定位精度在不同电网段间存在差异,说明其困难程度具有拓扑依赖性,而非仅由时间上下文不足所致。该研究为两类具有根本不同信息需求的保护任务提供了可比的基准参考。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The increasing complexity of modern power systems, driven by the integration of inverter-based and distributed energy resources, challenges the reliability of conventional protection schemes and motivates the use of machine learning for protection tasks. However, published results are often difficult to compare because datasets, sensing assumptions, and decision horizons vary across studies. This paper presents a controlled comparison of machine learning models for fault classification (FC) and fault localization (FL) under identical sensing, timing, and validation conditions on a common electromagnetic transient dataset, using decision windows of 10-50 ms to reflect protection-relevant time scales. For FC, the best-performing nonlinear models achieve F1 scores above 0.98 already at 10 ms, while lower-capacity models degrade at shorter horizons but improve with longer windows, indicating that relevant fault-type information is already present in the earliest transient. For FL, the top-performing models reach a stable localization error of about 10 % of normalized line length across all evaluated horizons, while weaker models form a clearly separated second performance tier. Line-resolved analysis shows that localization accuracy varies across grid segments, indicating topology-dependent difficulty rather than insufficient temporal context alone. These findings provide a controlled reference for comparing machine learning models across two protection tasks with fundamentally different information requirements.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。