Distribution system state estimation provides the network-wide voltage awareness required to operate active feeders, yet scarce real-time metering forces reliance on uncertain pseudo-measurements. This paper studies how to attach empirically auditable, finite-sample prediction intervals to learned network-wide voltage estimates. A graph attention network (GAT) maps measurement-derived node features to point estimates and conditional quantiles, and conformalized quantile regression is calibrated separately for every fixed bus and output coordinate across held-out snapshots. At 20% measurement density on the IEEE 33-bus and 69-bus feeders, voltage-magnitude coverage is 0.901 and 0.903 against nominal 0.90, with angle coverage 0.896 and 0.904. The revision broadens the benchmark to matched quantile GBT, quantile MLP, MC-dropout Bayesian, and two-stage MFBNN-style baselines; architecture, calibration-size, temporal-split, simultaneous-coverage, meter-placement, topology-transfer, physics-consistency, missing-meter, and contamination-mismatch tests; and robust WLS. These tests materially narrow the claim: GBT and MLP are stronger fixed-topology backbones, learned attention is diffuse and seed-sensitive, and marginal intervals do not imply simultaneous network coverage. Random mask training limits the 40% dropout coverage loss to 0.887 (33 buses) and 0.796 (69 buses), while matched recalibration reaches 0.899 and 0.846. Max-score conformal calibration raises simultaneous voltage-magnitude coverage from 0.258/0.075 to 0.901/0.902 at a width cost. The contribution is therefore a DSSE-specific integration and failure-boundary benchmark for model-agnostic, fixed-bus conformal calibration, rather than a claim that attention is universally preferable or that nominal validity survives arbitrary shift.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: