This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Fine-grained monitoring of active distribution networks relies on complete measurements at the distribution-transformer level; however, owing to communication-link latency the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) suffers delayed data arrival, so that random missingness is pervasive across sampling cross-sections, while purely data-driven imputation struggles to guarantee physical consistency, so its outputs cannot directly serve feasibility-sensitive downstream applications. To address this, we propose a Physics-Informed Gated Attention Transformer, abbreviated PIGAT, which performs zonal pseudo-measurement imputation following a "correct-then-propagate" principle: the network is divided into radial sub-zones with tie switches as boundaries, the boundary tie branches are observed by SCADA, and the outgoing tie power flows act as free variables that characterize inter-zone coupling. The framework consists of three mutually coupled mechanisms. First, a confidence-aware gate corrects missing entries before spatial aggregation to suppress missing-value contamination, and a physics-informed impedance attention bias encodes electrical proximity by cumulative branch impedance. Second, a differentiable DistFlow hard-constraint output head with denoising enhancement embeds the branch power-flow equations as an analytical recursion, so that the imputation result strictly satisfies this physical constraint by construction. Third, physical partitioning combined with per-node shared projection decouples the parameter count from the number of nodes N and reduces the per-zone node scale, balancing scalability and parallel-training efficiency. Under scenarios with different missing rates, noise levels, and DER penetrations, zonal pseudo-measurement imputation experiments are conducted on the modified IEEE 33-/123-bus systems, validating the synergistic advantages of the proposed method in accuracy, physical consistency, and scalability.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: