The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison and Validation of Statistical Methods for Predicting Power Outage Durations in the Event of Hurricanes
Abstract
This article compares statistical methods for modeling power outage durations during hurricanes and examines the predictive accuracy of these methods. Being able to make accurate predictions of power outage durations is valuable because the information can be used by utility companies to plan their restoration efforts more efficiently. This information can also help inform customers and public agencies of the expected outage times, enabling better collective response planning, and coordination of restoration efforts for other critical infrastructures that depend on electricity. In the long run, outage duration estimates for future storm scenarios may help utilities and public agencies better allocate risk management resources to balance the disruption from hurricanes with the cost of hardening power systems. We compare the out‐of‐sample predictive accuracy of five distinct statistical models for estimating power outage duration times caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004. The methods compared include both regression models (accelerated failure time (AFT) and Cox proportional hazard models (Cox PH)) and data mining techniques (regression trees, Bayesian additive regression trees (BART), and multivariate additive regression splines). We then validate our models against two other hurricanes. Our results indicate that BART yields the best prediction accuracy and that it is possible to predict outage durations with reasonable accuracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Classification And Regression Trees
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (2017) · doi:10.1201/9781315139470 · Cited by 11,417
Cited by
Research on Resilience of Power Systems Under Natural Disasters—A Review
Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Baldick, R. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Power Systems · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2015.2429656 · Cited by 1,116
Classifying earthquake damage to buildings using machine learning
Mangalathu, S., Sun, H., Nweke, C. C., Yi, Z., & Burton, H. V. (2020) · Earthquake Spectra · doi:10.1177/8755293019878137 · Cited by 298
Resilience of Energy Infrastructure and Services: Modeling, Data Analytics, and Metrics
Ji, C., Wei, Y., & Poor, H. V. (2017) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2017.2698262 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Nateghi, R., Guikema, S. D., & Quiring, S. M.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-13
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1897-1906
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1901410642
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison and Validation of Statistical Methods for Predicting Power Outage Durations in the Event of Hurricanes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01618.x
- The paper
- Nateghi, R., Guikema, S. D., & Quiring, S. M. (2011). Comparison and Validation of Statistical Methods for Predicting Power Outage Durations in the Event of Hurricanes. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01618.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.