Paper
Verification and Validation of Physics-Informed Surrogate Component Models for Dynamic Power-System Simulation
Authors
Petros Ellinas, Indrajit Chaudhuri, Johanna Vorwerk, Spyros Chatzivasileiadis
Abstract
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.
Metadata
Related papers
Fractal universe and quantum gravity made simple
Fabio Briscese, Gianluca Calcagni • 2026-03-25
POLY-SIM: Polyglot Speaker Identification with Missing Modality Grand Challenge 2026 Evaluation Plan
Marta Moscati, Muhammad Saad Saeed, Marina Zanoni, Mubashir Noman, Rohan Kuma... • 2026-03-25
LensWalk: Agentic Video Understanding by Planning How You See in Videos
Keliang Li, Yansong Li, Hongze Shen, Mengdi Liu, Hong Chang, Shiguang Shan • 2026-03-25
Orientation Reconstruction of Proteins using Coulomb Explosions
Tomas André, Alfredo Bellisario, Nicusor Timneanu, Carl Caleman • 2026-03-25
The role of spatial context and multitask learning in the detection of organic and conventional farming systems based on Sentinel-2 time series
Jan Hemmerling, Marcel Schwieder, Philippe Rufin, Leon-Friedrich Thomas, Mire... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17836v1</id>\n <title>Verification and Validation of Physics-Informed Surrogate Component Models for Dynamic Power-System Simulation</title>\n <updated>2026-03-18T15:28:18Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17836v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.17836v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>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.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='eess.SY'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.LG'/>\n <published>2026-03-18T15:28:18Z</published>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='eess.SY'/>\n <author>\n <name>Petros Ellinas</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Indrajit Chaudhuri</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Johanna Vorwerk</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Spyros Chatzivasileiadis</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}