pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17314 · v1 · pith:JQUFDJJ4new · submitted 2026-06-15 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Line Outage Impact Factor (LOIF): A New Sensitivity Factor for Enhanced Transmission Observability

Daniel Flores , Yuanrui Sang , Michael P. McGarry This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords line outage impact factorsensitivity factortransmission line outage detectionLODFmachine learningpower system monitoringF1-scoreobservability
0
0 comments X

The pith

The line outage impact factor (LOIF) selects monitoring locations that improve machine learning detection of transmission outages over the line outage distribution factor (LODF).

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces LOIF as a sensitivity factor that measures how one line's outage affects power flows on other lines more usefully than LODF for choosing which lines to monitor. It tests the idea by selecting observed transmission lines (OTLs) with each factor in three test systems, then training a machine learning model to detect outages on unmonitored lines from the OTL measurements and scoring results with the F1 metric. Across the tests, the same number of LOIF-chosen OTLs produced higher F1-scores than LODF-chosen ones, with the gap holding more steadily as system size grew. A reader would care because better placement of a limited number of sensors could raise the chance of catching outages before they cascade.

Core claim

LOIF is a new sensitivity factor that reveals the impacts of a transmission outage on the power flow of other lines more effectively than LODF. When used to choose observed transmission lines for machine learning outage detection, it yields higher F1-scores than LODF selection in the three test systems, with the improvement especially consistent on large-scale systems.

What carries the argument

The Line Outage Impact Factor (LOIF), a sensitivity factor that quantifies outage effects on other lines' flows to guide selection of observed transmission lines (OTLs) for monitoring.

If this is right

  • With a fixed number of observed transmission lines, LOIF selection produces higher F1-scores for outage detection than LODF selection.
  • The performance gain from LOIF appears more reliable as the power system size increases.
  • LOIF-based monitoring could therefore support more reliable real-time outage detection in practical grids.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the F1 improvement holds, grid operators could achieve the same detection accuracy with fewer sensors by switching to LOIF selection.
  • LOIF might also improve other monitoring tasks such as contingency ranking or state estimation that rely on sensitivity information.
  • Repeating the comparison on systems with different topologies or with alternative detection algorithms would test whether the advantage is general.

Load-bearing premise

Differences in F1-scores arise from the sensitivity factor used for OTL selection rather than from unstated details of the machine learning setup, data handling, or the particular test systems.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies the identical machine learning pipeline and data preprocessing to OTL sets chosen by LOIF and by LODF on the same large test system and finds that LODF selection produces equal or higher F1-scores.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17314 by Daniel Flores, Michael P. McGarry, Yuanrui Sang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Causes of line outages categorized into four common groups: Extreme Weather, Equipment Failure, Cyber Attacks, Human Error affected, and many line-outage detection methods have used PMUs to detect these changes by observing changes in voltage and current phasors, using pre-outage and post-outage data [6, 33, 31]. Traditionally, many line-outage detection methods were physics-driven, relying on common power… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the proposed LOIF-based framework for transmission line outage detection. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we define the line outage impact factor (LOIF) and describe its use to detect transmission line outages as a classification problem. Section 3 presents the experimental plan to compare two OTL selection algorithms with random selection. The results of our experi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: IEEE 30-bus system: Comparison in F1-score between LOIF and LODF across feature selection methods greedy MCP, high-𝜂, and random for different numbers of OTL. 𝛽 and 𝛾 are both set 0.1, and LOIF gets full coverage with only 9 OTLs while LODF gets full coverage with 12 OTLs 4.2. 118-Bus System The IEEE 118-bus system contained a total of 186 transmission lines. Of these, 9 line-outage simulations did not con… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 118-Bus system: Comparison in F1-score between LOIF and LODF across feature selection methods greedy MCP, high-𝜂, and random for different numbers of OTL. 𝛽 and 𝛾 are both set 0.1, and LOIF gets full coverage with only 34 OTLs while LODF gets full coverage with 67 OTLs MCP outperforming the others. As we increased the number of OTLs, we observed a steady increase in the average F1-score across all three me… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 1664-Bus system: Comparison in F1-score between LOIF and LODF across feature selection methods greedy MCP, high-𝜂, and random for different numbers of OTL. 𝛽 and 𝛾 are both set 0.1, and LOIF gets full coverage with only 567 OTLs while LODF gets full coverage with 895 OTLs Comparing the Wisconsin system to much smaller systems such as the 30-bus and 118-bus systems, we saw that the kNN performance decreased… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of similar LODF values producing different observable impacts at OTL 1 in the IEEE 30-bus system. 4.5. OTL Selection in the Greedy MCP and High-𝜂 Methods In this section, we compare OTL differences between greedy MCP and high-𝜂 across the three systems, using both LOIF and LODF. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 118-bus system: Comparison between power flow measurements for outage labels with correct kNN classification and outage labels with incorrect kNN classification. 5. Conclusion and Future Work In this paper, we present a detailed review of DC power flow-based power system sensitivity factors and introduce LOIF, which measures the impact of an outaged line on another line in the power system. In the case stu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Transmission failures can lead to cascading failures and system blackout affecting millions of customers if not handled in time, and choosing the best locations to monitor the condition of the transmission system is crucial for power system reliability. In this paper, we propose a new sensitivity factor, the line outage impact factor (LOIF), which is especially useful for power system monitoring and can reveal the impacts of a transmission outage on the power flow of other lines more effectively than existing sensitivity factors, such as the line outage distribution factors (LODF). In this study, we apply the LOIF in transmission line outage detection in three test systems and compare it with LODF using a number of observed transmission line (OTL) selection methods based on these two sensitivity factors. Then we apply a machine learning algorithm to detect the outages of other lines by monitoring the selected OTLs, and the detection accuracy is evaluated using the F1-score. The results show that, in general, with the same number of OTLs, detection using the OTLs selected using LOIF achieved higher F1-scores. The pattern was especially consistent in large-scale systems, showing its potential in real-world applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new sensitivity factor, the Line Outage Impact Factor (LOIF), claiming it outperforms the Line Outage Distribution Factor (LODF) for selecting observed transmission lines (OTLs) to enable more accurate machine learning detection of line outages, with higher F1-scores observed on three test systems and particularly consistent gains in large-scale systems.

Significance. If the central empirical claim holds after proper documentation, LOIF could improve transmission observability and outage detection reliability in power grids by providing a more effective sensitivity measure than LODF for OTL selection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that LOIF 'can reveal the impacts of a transmission outage on the power flow of other lines more effectively than existing sensitivity factors, such as the line outage distribution factors (LODF)' is load-bearing for the contribution but supplies no derivation, definition, or equations for LOIF, making superiority impossible to verify.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline result that 'with the same number of OTLs, detection using the OTLs selected using LOIF achieved higher F1-scores' (especially in large-scale systems) cannot be assessed because the manuscript provides no details on the machine learning algorithm, data preprocessing, train/test splits, hyper-parameter tuning, or statistical tests, so differences cannot be attributed to LOIF versus LODF rather than unstated implementation choices.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the pattern 'was especially consistent in large-scale systems, showing its potential in real-world applications' lacks any description of the three test systems (e.g., bus counts or topologies) or quantitative evidence of consistency, which is required to support the scalability claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the abstract to improve clarity and verifiability while preserving the manuscript's core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that LOIF 'can reveal the impacts of a transmission outage on the power flow of other lines more effectively than existing sensitivity factors, such as the line outage distribution factors (LODF)' is load-bearing for the contribution but supplies no derivation, definition, or equations for LOIF, making superiority impossible to verify.

    Authors: We agree the abstract would be strengthened by including a brief definition of LOIF. The derivation from power flow sensitivities and the explicit formula for LOIF appear in Section II of the manuscript. We will revise the abstract to add a concise statement of the LOIF definition and equation, enabling readers to assess the claim directly from the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline result that 'with the same number of OTLs, detection using the OTLs selected using LOIF achieved higher F1-scores' (especially in large-scale systems) cannot be assessed because the manuscript provides no details on the machine learning algorithm, data preprocessing, train/test splits, hyper-parameter tuning, or statistical tests, so differences cannot be attributed to LOIF versus LODF rather than unstated implementation choices.

    Authors: The machine learning details (random forest classifier, preprocessing steps, 70/30 train/test splits, cross-validation for hyperparameters, and paired statistical tests on F1-scores) are fully documented in Sections III and IV. The abstract is a high-level summary, but we will add a short clause referencing the ML approach and evaluation protocol to make the result more self-contained. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the pattern 'was especially consistent in large-scale systems, showing its potential in real-world applications' lacks any description of the three test systems (e.g., bus counts or topologies) or quantitative evidence of consistency, which is required to support the scalability claim.

    Authors: The three test systems (including bus counts and topologies) are described in Section III-A, with quantitative F1-score results and consistency metrics across system sizes reported in Tables II–IV and Figure 5. We will revise the abstract to briefly identify the test systems and note the observed consistency in the largest case to support the scalability statement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: LOIF defined independently; empirical F1 comparison does not reduce to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper defines LOIF as a proposed sensitivity factor for outage impact and evaluates it via direct comparison of F1-scores against LODF on the same ML-based detection task across three test systems. No equations or steps are shown that equate the claimed performance gain to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or renamed input. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks (the test systems and F1 metric), with the central result being an observable difference rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the introduction of LOIF as a new sensitivity factor derived from power flow models and its empirical superiority in ML detection tasks; the main invented entity is LOIF itself with no independent evidence provided beyond the reported tests.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard DC or AC power flow equations and sensitivity factor definitions used in transmission system analysis
    LOIF and LODF are defined in terms of these established models.
invented entities (1)
  • Line Outage Impact Factor (LOIF) no independent evidence
    purpose: To quantify outage impacts on other lines more effectively than LODF for OTL selection
    Newly defined in the paper; no external validation or falsifiable prediction outside the reported experiments is described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5745 in / 1268 out tokens · 55539 ms · 2026-06-27T02:21:56.980791+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Transmissionlineoutageestimationthroughbuscurrentcomparisonutilizingcurrent phasor of pmu, in: Gupta, O.H., Sood, V.K

    Alam,M.,Kundu,S.,Thakur,S.S.,Banerjee,S.,2021. Transmissionlineoutageestimationthroughbuscurrentcomparisonutilizingcurrent phasor of pmu, in: Gupta, O.H., Sood, V.K. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Power Systems, Springer Singapore, Singapore. pp. 377–389

    2021

  2. [2]

    KNNBasedApproachforTransmissionLineOutageDetectionUsingSynchrophasor Data, in: Kumar, J., Tripathy, M., Jena, P

    Alam,M.,Kundu,S.,Thakur,S.S.,Banerjee,S.,2022. KNNBasedApproachforTransmissionLineOutageDetectionUsingSynchrophasor Data, in: Kumar, J., Tripathy, M., Jena, P. (Eds.), Control Applications in Modern Power Systems, Springer Nature, Singapore. pp. 83–93

    2022

  3. [3]

    Wide-Area Line Outage Monitoring by Sparse Phasor Measurements

    Azizi, S., Jegarluei, M.R., Kettner, A.M., Dobakhshari, A.S., 2023. Wide-Area Line Outage Monitoring by Sparse Phasor Measurements. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 3621–3631

    2023

  4. [4]

    Real-TimeGridMonitoringandProtection:AComprehensiveSurveyontheAdvantages of Phasor Measurement Units

    Biswal,C.,Sahu,B.K.,Mishra,M.,Rout,P.K.,2023. Real-TimeGridMonitoringandProtection:AComprehensiveSurveyontheAdvantages of Phasor Measurement Units. Energies 16, 4054

    2023

  5. [5]

    LearningPowerGridOutagesWithHigher-OrderTopologicalNeuralNetworks

    Chen,Y.,Jacob,R.A.,Gel,Y.R.,Zhang,J.,Poor,H.V.,2024. LearningPowerGridOutagesWithHigher-OrderTopologicalNeuralNetworks. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 39, 720–732

    2024

  6. [6]

    Line Outage Identification Based on AC Power Flow and Synchronized Measurements, in: 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp

    Dai, Z., Tate, J.E., 2020. Line Outage Identification Based on AC Power Flow and Synchronized Measurements, in: 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp. 1–5

    2020

  7. [7]

    TheImpactofRenewablesonOperationalSecurity:OperatingPowerSystemsThatHaveExtremelyHighPenetrations of Nonsynchronous Renewable Sources

    Dudurych,I.M.,2021. TheImpactofRenewablesonOperationalSecurity:OperatingPowerSystemsThatHaveExtremelyHighPenetrations of Nonsynchronous Renewable Sources. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine 19, 37–45

    2021

  8. [8]

    Effective feature selection for line outage localization: Line outage impact factors (loif), in: 2025 57th North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp

    Flores, D., McGarry, M.P., Sang, Y., 2025. Effective feature selection for line outage localization: Line outage impact factors (loif), in: 2025 57th North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/NAPS66256.2025.11272235

    work page doi:10.1109/naps66256.2025.11272235 2025

  9. [9]

    TransmissionLineOutageDetectionwithLimitedInformationUsingMachineLearning,in:2023 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp

    Flores,D.,Sang,Y.,McGarry,M.P.,2023. TransmissionLineOutageDetectionwithLimitedInformationUsingMachineLearning,in:2023 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp. 1–5

    2023

  10. [10]

    Power System Analysis and Design

    Glover, J.D., Sarma, M.S., Overbye, T., Birchfield, A., 2023. Power System Analysis and Design. 7 ed., Cengage Learning. URL:https: //www.cengage.com/c/power-system-analysis-and-design-7e-glover-sarma-overbye-birchfield/9780357676189/

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Generalized line outage distribution factors

    Güler, T., Gross, G., Liu, M., 2007. Generalized line outage distribution factors. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 22, 879–881. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2006.888950

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2006.888950 2007

  12. [12]

    GraphConvolutionalNeuralNetworksforPowerLineOutageIdentification,in:202025thInternationalConference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pp

    He,J.,Cheng,M.,2021a. GraphConvolutionalNeuralNetworksforPowerLineOutageIdentification,in:202025thInternationalConference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pp. 4198–4205

  13. [13]

    Machine learning methods for power line outage identification

    He, J., Cheng, M.X., 2021b. Machine learning methods for power line outage identification. The Electricity Journal 34

  14. [14]

    Performance comparison of classification methods for line outage detection, in: 2016 Eighteenth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), pp

    Ibrahim, A.M., Ezzat, M., Abdelaziz, A.Y., 2016. Performance comparison of classification methods for line outage detection, in: 2016 Eighteenth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), pp. 26–32

    2016

  15. [15]

    Challenges of renewable energy penetration on power system flexibility: A survey

    Impram, S., Varbak Nese, S., Oral, B., 2020. Challenges of renewable energy penetration on power system flexibility: A survey. Energy Strategy Reviews 31, 100539

    2020

  16. [16]

    AnalysisoftheImpactofHumanErrorsonEmergencyPowerOutagesinMediumandHighVoltagePower Grids, in: 2023 15th Electrical Engineering Faculty Conference (BulEF), pp

    Ivanova,M.,Dimitrova,R.,2023. AnalysisoftheImpactofHumanErrorsonEmergencyPowerOutagesinMediumandHighVoltagePower Grids, in: 2023 15th Electrical Engineering Faculty Conference (BulEF), pp. 1–4

    2023

  17. [17]

    AnalysisofHumanFactorsContributingtoOutagesintheOperationofElectricalPowerSystems,in:2025 17th Electrical Engineering Faculty Conference - Energetics and Efficiency (BulEF), pp

    Ivanova,M.,Dimitrova,R.,2025. AnalysisofHumanFactorsContributingtoOutagesintheOperationofElectricalPowerSystems,in:2025 17th Electrical Engineering Faculty Conference - Energetics and Efficiency (BulEF), pp. 1–4

    2025

  18. [18]

    Power Line Outage Identification Using PMU, in: 2022 IEEE 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Energy, Signal Processing and Cyber Security (iSSSC), pp

    Jha, V., Mishra, B., Vishwakarma, S.K., 2022. Power Line Outage Identification Using PMU, in: 2022 IEEE 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Energy, Signal Processing and Cyber Security (iSSSC), pp. 1–6

    2022

  19. [19]

    Acriticalreviewofmethodsforoptimalplacementofphasormeasurementunits

    Johnson,T.,Moger,T.,2021. Acriticalreviewofmethodsforoptimalplacementofphasormeasurementunits. InternationalTransactionson Electrical Energy Systems 31, e12698

    2021

  20. [20]

    PMUPlacementforLineOutageIdentificationviaMultinomialLogisticRegression

    Kim,T.,Wright,S.J.,2018. PMUPlacementforLineOutageIdentificationviaMultinomialLogisticRegression. IEEETransactionsonSmart Grid 9, 122–131

    2018

  21. [21]

    Aliteraturereviewonoptimalplacementofphasormeasurementunits,in:2013InternationalConferenceon Power, Energy and Control (ICPEC), pp

    More,K.K.,Jadhav,H.T.,2013. Aliteraturereviewonoptimalplacementofphasormeasurementunits,in:2013InternationalConferenceon Power, Energy and Control (ICPEC), pp. 220–224

    2013

  22. [22]

    Impactofvariablerenewableenergysourcesonthepowersystemfrequencystabilityandsystem inertia

    Njoka,G.M.,Mogaka,L.,Wangai,A.,2024. Impactofvariablerenewableenergysourcesonthepowersystemfrequencystabilityandsystem inertia. Energy Reports 12, 4983–4997

    2024

  23. [23]

    Phasor measurement unit integration: A review on optimal PMU placement methods in power system, in: 2017 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), pp

    Noureen, S.S., Roy, V., Bayne, S.B., 2017. Phasor measurement unit integration: A review on optimal PMU placement methods in power system, in: 2017 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), pp. 328–332

    2017

  24. [24]

    Phasor Measurement unit technology and its applications - a review, in: 2015 International Conference on Energy Systems and Applications, pp

    Penshanwar, M.K., Gavande, M., Satarkar, M.F.A.R., 2015. Phasor Measurement unit technology and its applications - a review, in: 2015 International Conference on Energy Systems and Applications, pp. 318–323

    2015

  25. [25]

    Cyber Attacks on Power Grids: Causes and Propagation of Cascading Failures

    Rajkumar, V.S., Ştefanov, A., Presekal, A., Palensky, P., Torres, J.L.R., 2023. Cyber Attacks on Power Grids: Causes and Propagation of Cascading Failures. IEEE Access 11, 103154–103176

    2023

  26. [26]

    Dynamical Analysis of Power System Cascading Failures Caused by Cyber Attacks

    Rajkumar, V.S., Ştefanov, A., Rueda Torres, J.L., Palensky, P., 2024. Dynamical Analysis of Power System Cascading Failures Caused by Cyber Attacks. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 20, 8807–8817. D. Flores, Y. Sang, M. P. McGarry:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 14 of 15 LOIF: A New Sensitivity Factor

    2024

  27. [27]

    Analysis of Weather and Climate Extremes Impact on Power System Outage, in: 2021 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp

    Ren, H., Hou, Z.J., Ke, X., Huang, Q., Makatov, Y., 2021. Analysis of Weather and Climate Extremes Impact on Power System Outage, in: 2021 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp. 01–05

    2021

  28. [28]

    Rimal, B., Paudel, N., Bhattarai, A., 2022. Optimal Placement of Phasor Measurement Units Ensuring Power System Observability, in: 2022 14th International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management and Applications (SKIMA), pp. 7–12

    2022

  29. [29]

    Rogers,J.,Lin,H.,Sun,Y.L.,2024.Prediction-BasedDataAugmentationforSmartGridLineOutageDetection,in:202456thNorthAmerican Power Symposium (NAPS), pp. 1–6

    2024

  30. [30]

    Major Blackouts of the Decade: Underlying Causes, RecommendationsandArisingChallenges,in:20219thIEEEInternationalConferenceonPowerSystems(ICPS),pp.1–6

    Sharma, N., Acharya, A., Jacob, I., Yamujala, S., Gupta, V., Bhakar, R., 2021. Major Blackouts of the Decade: Underlying Causes, RecommendationsandArisingChallenges,in:20219thIEEEInternationalConferenceonPowerSystems(ICPS),pp.1–6. ISSN:2691-0233

    2021

  31. [31]

    Line Outage Detection Using Phasor Measurement Units

    Srikumar M.S., Ananthapadmanbha, T., Khan, F.Z., Girish V., 2015. Line Outage Detection Using Phasor Measurement Units. Procedia Technology 21, 88–95

    2015

  32. [32]

    A Machine Learning Framework for Event Identification via Modal Analysis of PMU Data

    Taghipourbazargani, N., Dasarathy, G., Sankar, L., Kosut, O., 2023. A Machine Learning Framework for Event Identification via Modal Analysis of PMU Data. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 4165–4176

    2023

  33. [33]

    Line Outage Detection Using Phasor Angle Measurements

    Tate, J.E., Overbye, T.J., 2008. Line Outage Detection Using Phasor Angle Measurements. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 23, 1644– 1652

    2008

  34. [34]

    IEEE Access 12, 18147–18167

    Tatipatri,N.,Arun,S.L.,2024.AComprehensiveReviewonCyber-AttacksinPowerSystems:ImpactAnalysis,Detection,andCyberSecurity. IEEE Access 12, 18147–18167

    2024

  35. [35]

    Applications of synchrophasor technologies in power systems

    Usman, M.U., Faruque, M.O., 2019. Applications of synchrophasor technologies in power systems. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 7, 211–226

    2019

  36. [36]

    MajorPowerSystemBlackouts:ASurvey, in: 2024 10th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES), pp

    Venkatanagaraju,K.,Rakesh,M.,Yenugu,B.C.,Sharma,P.P.,Andanapalli,K.,Biswal,M.,2024. MajorPowerSystemBlackouts:ASurvey, in: 2024 10th International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES), pp. 1–6. ISSN: 2693-3934

    2024

  37. [37]

    Analysis of the quantity and causes of outages in LV/MV electric grids

    Vinogradov, A., Vinogradova, A., Bolshev, V., 2020. Analysis of the quantity and causes of outages in LV/MV electric grids. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems 6, 537–542

    2020

  38. [38]

    Power Generation, Operation, and Control

    Wood, A.J., Wollenberg, B.F., 1996. Power Generation, Operation, and Control. 2 ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York

    1996

  39. [39]

    OptimalPlacementofLimitedPMUsforTransmissionLineOutageDetectionandIdentification,in:2020 International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS), pp

    Yang,X.,Chen,N.,Zhai,C.,2020. OptimalPlacementofLimitedPMUsforTransmissionLineOutageDetectionandIdentification,in:2020 International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS), pp. 1–6. ISSN: 2642-6757

    2020

  40. [40]

    Sparse PMU Placement Algorithm for Enhanced Detection and Identification of Power Grid Events

    Yildiz, T., Abur, A., 2025. Sparse PMU Placement Algorithm for Enhanced Detection and Identification of Power Grid Events. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 40, 1843–1853

    2025

  41. [41]

    Comprehensive Review of PMU Applications in Smart Grid: Enhancing Grid Reliability and Efficiency

    Yu, S.S., Rahman, M.S., Zhang, G., Meraj, S.T., Trinh, H., 2025. Comprehensive Review of PMU Applications in Smart Grid: Enhancing Grid Reliability and Efficiency. Chinese Journal of Electrical Engineering 11, 19–59

    2025

  42. [42]

    Złotecka, D., Sroka, K., 2018. The characteristics and main causes of power system failures basing on the analysis of previous blackouts in the world, in: 2018 International Interdisciplinary PhD Workshop (IIPhDW), pp. 257–262. D. Flores, Y. Sang, M. P. McGarry:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 15 of 15

    2018