arXiv:2510.03571cs.LGcs.AI2025-10中稿 · IEEE SmartGridComm…被引 4

对比多种图神经网络在电网故障检测中的泛化能力,发现GATv2表现最优。

Generalization of Graph Neural Network Models for Distribution Grid Fault Detection

  • 将GraphSAGE、GAT和GATv2引入RNN+GNN框架,用于电网故障诊断
  • GATv2在不同拓扑下F1分数仅下降约12%,优于其他模型
  • 适合需要跨场景部署的智能电网故障检测系统使用

电力配电系统的故障检测对保障系统可靠性至关重要,且需应对因重构、设备故障及分布式能源接入导致的拓扑变化。现有数据驱动方法多采用时序建模的RNN与空间学习的GNN结合的RGNN框架,如基于图卷积网络(GCN)的方法。本文首次系统性地在RGNN框架中评估多种先进GNN架构,包括GraphSAGE、GAT和GATv2,并与RGCN及纯RNN模型(如GRU)进行对比。实验基于IEEE 123节点配电网络,结果表明:RGATv2在不同拓扑设置下保持优异泛化性能,F1分数下降约12%;而纯RNN模型性能大幅下降,最高达60%;其他RGNN变体也出现显著退化,最多降低约25%的F1分数。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Fault detection in power distribution grids is critical for ensuring system reliability and preventing costly outages. Moreover, fault detection methodologies should remain robust to evolving grid topologies caused by factors such as reconfigurations, equipment failures, and Distributed Energy Resource (DER) integration. Current data-driven state-of-the-art methods use Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) for temporal modeling and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for spatial learning, in an RNN+GNN pipeline setting (RGNN in short). Specifically, for power system fault diagnosis, Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) have been adopted. Yet, various more advanced GNN architectures have been proposed and adopted in domains outside of power systems. In this paper, we set out to systematically and consistently benchmark various GNN architectures in an RNN+GNN pipeline model. Specifically, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to (i) propose to use GraphSAGE and Graph Attention (GAT, GATv2) in an RGNN for fault diagnosis, and (ii) provide a comprehensive benchmark against earlier proposed RGNN solutions (RGCN) as well as pure RNN models (especially Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)), particularly (iii) exploring their generalization potential for deployment in different settings than those used for training them. Our experimental results on the IEEE 123-node distribution network show that RGATv2 has superior generalization capabilities, maintaining high performance with an F1-score reduction of $\sim$12% across different topology settings. In contrast, pure RNN models largely fail, experiencing an F1-score reduction of up to $\sim$60%, while other RGNN variants also exhibit significant performance degradation, i.e., up to $\sim$25% lower F1-scores.

图神经网络电网故障检测泛化能力GATv2

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。