Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42389598›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Classifying electric service disruptions under deep uncertainty: A comparative analysis of algorithms and their policy outcomes.

Akua Adeneke McLeod, Amritanshu Pandey, Destenie Nock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Akua Adeneke McLeodEngineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Amritanshu PandeyElectrical and Biomedical Engineering, University of Vermont, 33 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Destenie NockEngineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As machine learning finds increasing applications in energy policy, it is critical to evaluate model accuracy alongside interpretability and equity. We leverage classification of electricity disruptions within residential advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) data as a testbed for evaluating four models: logistic regression, a support vector machine (SVM), a histogram-based gradient boosting (HGB), and a neural network. We find that the HGB approach consistently outperforms logistic regression and marginally outperforms the SVM and the neural network across multiple evaluation metrics. Despite similar accuracy across models, derived duration and frequency metrics show that models prioritize different communities for investment, reflecting the challenges of decision-making under deep uncertainty. Depending on the reliability metric, up to 36 communities (over 100,000 households) are sensitive to the choice of classifier. These results highlight how the investment pathways for outage mitigation vary with algorithmic choice, emphasizing the need for both interpretable and equitable models.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceEnergy modellingEngineering

Identifiers

PMID42389598
PMCPMC13320266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.