Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

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

Nateghi, Roshanak, Guikema, Seth D., Quiring, Steven M.·2011·Risk Analysis

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01618.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 205

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.