Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase 2 demonstrates improved convergence in real AC power flow simulations, suggesting enhanced grid optimization strategies.
Phase 2 transitions from the controlled nonlinear surrogate used in Phase 1 to a full real AC Power Flow (AC PF) computation using the pandapower library on the IEEE 118-bus network. This represents the first deployment of inZORi's Frozen Elite strategy on a real grid physics simulator rather than a mathematical approximation. The operational regime is intentionally challenging: base loads are scaled to 1.75x nominal (near voltage-collapse boundary), the Newton-Raphson iteration budget is constrained to nr_max=5, and N-1 topology shocks occur every 300 steps in Stage 3 — a frequency roughly 3x higher than Phase 1. Under these conditions, static heuristic baselines converge at approximately 52% in Stage 3. The inZORi Multi-Genome Frozen Elite selector — an adaptive, O(1)-cost runtime mechanism choosing among six pre-evolved genomes based on contextual signals (season, recent convergence, N-1 status) — achieves 69.6% S3 convergence, a +16.8 percentage points (pp) improvement over Baseline B, with CI95 non-overlap confirmed across 20 independent seeds. Recovery time after N-1 line restoration: inZORi recovers in 1.64 steps versus ~6.7 steps for baselines (~4x faster). Key results (Real AC PF | IEEE 118-bus | 1.75x load | N-1 every 300 steps | 50k x 20 seeds): - S3 convergence (inZORi Frozen Elite): 69.63% (CI95 [69.33, 69.92]) - S3 convergence (Baseline A): 52.08% (CI95 [51.51, 52.65]) - S3 convergence (Baseline B): 52.84% (CI95 [52.16, 53.51]) - Improvement vs Baseline B: +16.8 pp (CI95 non-overlap confirmed) - N-1 recovery: 1.64 steps (inZORi) vs 6.80 (Baseline A), 6.61 (Baseline B) — ~4x faster - Runtime: O(1) genome selection, no online evolution at inference time This is Phase 2 of a two-phase study. Phase 1 (nonlinear surrogate, 99.1% S3 convergence) is published at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18716837
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dumitru Novic (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: