A Standardized Framework for Machine Learning in Power System Protection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Studies of machine-learning-based power-system protection increasingly report near-perfect scores, yet the meaning of those scores depends strongly on the evaluation setting. Protection task, physical scope, measurements, timing, targets, preprocessing, and validation often vary jointly and remain incompletely specified. This paper proposes a standardization-oriented framework that treats evaluation design as part of the scientific contribution. It defines seven required study dimensions: protection objective, physical scope, observability, timing and decision windows, targets and sample validity, validation protocol, and evaluation outputs. The framework is instantiated in a bounded case study on the public PROTECT-90 electromagnetic-transient benchmark, comprising 9022 simulated episodes from a 90 kV double-line topology, for onset-conditioned fault classification and localization. Under centralized sensing, simulation-metadata-aligned 20 ms windows, and episode-grouped validation, a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) achieved a five-fold mean macro-averaged F1 score of 0.991 +/- 0.001 for classification and a localization mean absolute error of 10.20 +/- 0.25% of line length (mean +/- std across episode-grouped folds). Extending the decision horizon to 50 ms preserved this task-dependent performance asymmetry, while reduced observability approximately doubled the MLP localization error but had little effect on classification. A synchronized two-ended conventional locator outperformed the learning locators under its richer clean information set, and measurement degradation showed that clean predictive performance did not determine robustness. The framework turns evaluation assumptions into explicit, reproducible evidence and provides a basis for more comparable, auditable evaluation and future certification-oriented assessment of machine-learning protection functions.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2026.
Builds on
16 of 69 references.
References · 16
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2020Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)cited by 322
- 2021Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 201
- 2021Towards a Rigorous Evaluation of Time-series Anomaly Detectioncited by 97
- 2019Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challengescited by 39
- 2025A Scoping Review of Machine Learning Applications in Power System Protection and Disturbance Managementcited by 9
- 2025Impact of Data Sparsity on Machine Learning for Fault Detection in Power System Protectioncited by 6
- 2025Robustness Evaluation of Machine Learning Models for Fault Classification and Localization In Power System Protectioncited by 5
- 2025Controlled Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Fault Classification and Localization in Power System Protectioncited by 4
- 2026PROTECT-90: A Fault Dataset for Power System Protectioncited by 4
- 2024A large synthetic dataset for machine learning applications in power transmission gridscited by 3
4 more
- 2026Latency-Aware Deep Learning Benchmark for Real-Time Cyber-Physical Attack and Fault Classification in Inverter-Dominated Power Gridscited by 3
- 2026Fault Inception Detection in Real-World Disturbance Data for Power System Protectioncited by 2
- 2026Transformer is All You Need: Attention-Based Anomaly Detection and Classification in Inverter-Rich Power Systemscited by 2
- 2026Feature Selection for Fault Prediction in Distribution Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.