Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the challenge of verifying and validating physics-informed machine learning surrogates for power grid component models within dynamic power system simulations. They formulate the in-simulator use of surrogates as a verification and validation (V\&V) problem, deriving a finite-horizon error bound that relates component-output error to algebraic-coupling sensitivity, dynamic error amplification, and simulation horizon. Through model-based verification and data-based validation using conformal calibration, they demonstrate that stand-alone surrogate accuracy does not guarantee accurate in-simulator behavior, especially in stressed operating regions.
Seemingly accurate physics-informed surrogates can fail spectacularly when integrated into power system simulations, especially under stress, highlighting the need for rigorous in-simulator validation.
Physics-informed machine learning surrogates are increasingly explored to accelerate dynamic simulation of generators, converters, and other power grid components. The key question, however, is not only whether a surrogate matches a stand-alone component model on average, but whether it remains accurate after insertion into a differential-algebraic simulator, where the surrogate outputs enter the algebraic equations coupling the component to the rest of the system. This paper formulates that in-simulator use as a verification and validation (V\&V) problem. A finite-horizon bound is derived that links allowable component-output error to algebraic-coupling sensitivity, dynamic error amplification, and the simulation horizon. Two complementary settings are then studied: model-based verification against a reference component solver, and data-based validation through conformal calibration of the component-output variables exchanged with the simulator. The framework is general, but the case study focuses on physics-informed neural-network surrogates of second-, fourth-, and sixth-order synchronous-machine models. Results show that good stand-alone surrogate accuracy does not by itself guarantee accurate in-simulator behavior, that the largest discrepancies concentrate in stressed operating regions, and that small equation residuals do not necessarily imply small state-trajectory errors.
