# Graph Neural Networks for Fast Contingency Analysis of Power Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04213 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04213/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2023.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [OPFData: Large-scale datasets for AC optimal power flow with topological perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07234/) (2024)
- [PowerModelsGAT-AI: Physics-Informed Graph Attention for Multi-System Power Flow with Continual Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16879/) (2026)
- [Learning by Examples: Power Grid Steady State Analysis with a Tabular Foundation Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.20462/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The successful integration of machine learning models into decision support tools for grid operation hinges on effectively capturing the topological changes in daily operations. Frequent grid reconfigurations and N-k security analyses have to be conducted to ensure a reliable and secure power grid, leading to a vast combinatorial space of possible topologies and operating states. This combinatorial complexity, which increases with grid size, poses a significant computational challenge for traditional solvers. In this paper, we combine Physics-Informed Neural Networks with graph-aware neural network architectures, i.e., a Guided-Dropout (GD) and an Edge-Varying Graph Neural Network (GNN) architecture to learn the set points for a grid that considers all probable single-line reconfigurations (all critical N-1 scenarios) and subsequently apply the trained models to N-k scenarios. We demonstrate how incorporating the underlying physical equations for the network equations within the training procedure of the GD and the GNN architectures performs with N-1, N-2, and N-3 case studies. Using the AC Power Flow as a guiding application, we test our methods on the 6-bus, 24-bus, 57-bus, and 118-bus systems. We find that GNN not only achieves the task of contingency screening with satisfactory accuracy but does this up to 400 times faster than the Newton-Raphson power flow solver. Moreover, our results provide a comparison of the GD and GNN models in terms of accuracy and computational speed and provide recommendations on their adoption for contingency analysis of power systems.