Improving Power Grid Resilience Through Predictive
Outage Estimation
Rozhin Eskandarpour, Amin Khodaei
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Denver
Denver, CO 80210, USA
rozhin.eskandarpour@du.edu, amin.khodaei@du.edu

Abstract— In this paper, in an attempt to improve power grid
resilience, a machine learning model is proposed to predictively
estimate the component states in response to extreme events.
The proposed model is based on a multi-dimensional Support
Vector Machine (SVM) considering the associated resilience
index, i.e., the infrastructure quality level and the time duration
that each component can withstand the event, as well as
predicted path and intensity of the upcoming extreme event. The
outcome of the proposed model is the classified component state
data to two categories of outage and operational, which can be
further used to schedule system resources in a predictive
manner with the objective of maximizing its resilience. The
proposed model is validated using k-fold cross-validation and
model benchmarking techniques. The performance of the model
is tested through numerical simulations and based on a welldefined and commonly-used performance measure.
Index Terms-- extreme events, machine learning, power grids
resilience, predictive analytics.

I. INTRODUCTION
Predictive analytics and emerging applications of machine
intelligence tools are shaping every aspects of our daily lives.
Data has become the epicenter of the modern decision making
by policy makers, corporations, and enterprises. Utilities and
local governments are facing increasing expectations from
their customers and constituencies to effectively respond to
the aftermath of the catastrophic events such as hurricanes that
can affect the quality of life of the communities and interrupt
the business continuity. In this climate, the concept of
resilience enhancement has become an important risk
management measure in addressing these challenges.
Resilience denotes the capability of a system to absorb and
to adapt to external shocks, which is an important
characteristic expected from critical lifeline systems such as
electric power grids [1]. There are several types of external
shocks to the power grid, most notably extreme events which
include adverse weather events and natural disasters that are
known to cause considerable negative impacts not only on the
system itself but also on the society in general [2]. Among
these extreme events, hurricanes are known to be the most
frequent extreme event in the United States, mainly occurred
along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico [2]. The
This work has been supported in part by the U.S. National Science
Foundation under Grant CMMI-1434771.

Ali Arab
Data Management and Advanced Analytics
Protiviti Inc.
New York City, NY 10019, USA
ali.arab@protiviti.com

devastating aftermath of these events calls for disruptive
strategies to ensure that the power grid can still supply
electricity to customers, or even if considerably impacted, can
quickly bounce back from the contingency state to its normal
operational condition. In this case, an accurate forecasting of
the likely hurricane impacts on the power grid can be of
significant value as it can be leveraged in achieving enhanced
grid resilience. This paper proposes a machine learning based
method for predicting the state of the power grid components
in response to upcoming hurricane strikes.
The concept of resilience for complex systems was
originally introduced by Holling [3] in the ecology area.
Holling defined the resilience of a system as the rate and speed
of returning to normal conditions after an extreme event. The
intent of resilience study is to anticipate the unexpected
change due to failure, considering that systems have limits and
gaps, and the atmosphere constantly affects both regarding
design and external shocks [4]. In [5], the significance of
geographic and cascading interdependencies are highlighted
which are associated with urban infrastructure, and a general
method to describe infrastructure interdependencies is
proposed. In [6] the impact of resilient systems on diminishing
the probabilities of failure in urban infrastructure is analyzed.
This concept was extended into other systems including the
power grids. In [7] an approach for calculating the resilience
of a single infrastructure and its components is proposed. In
[8] a proactive resource allocation method aiming to repair
and recover power grid after extreme events is proposed. In
[9] and [10] a proactive recovery framework of power grid
components is introduced which develops a stochastic model
for operating the components prior to the event, followed by a
deterministic recovery model for managing resources after the
event. In [11] a restoration model is proposed based on power
flow constraints which identifies an optimal schedule using
the macroeconomic concept of the value of lost load (VOLL)
in order to minimize the economic loss due to load
interruptions in the post-disaster phase. A decision-making
model, based on unit commitment solution and system
configuration, is proposed in [12] to find the optimal repair
schedule after a hurricane and in the restoration phase of a
damaged power grid.

In [13], a power grid resilience index is proposed by
analyzing the process of generation, transmission, and
consumption of electricity in various countries. The geometric
mean of several factors such as the generation efficiency of
non-renewable fuel dependence, the distribution efficiency,
the carbon intensity, and the diversity are considered to
develop the resilience index. However, an index for individual
components in the system is not considered in the
methodology. In [14], a methodology to calculate resilience
index of power delivery systems in post-event infrastructure
recovery is proposed. A multi-infrastructure system including
electric
power
delivery,
telecommunications,
and
transportation is considered and the resilience measures of
fragility and quality are combined with the input-output model
of these infrastructures. The proposed index is evaluated by
the data collected from post-landfall of Hurricane Katrina to
assess the resilience and interdependence of a multi-system
networked infrastructure during natural extreme events. The
study in [15] proposes a framework for resilience
enhancement of urban infrastructure systems. The timedependent expected resilience metric is built on performance
and response of the power grid following an extreme event.
The process is performed in the stages of disaster prevention,
damage propagation, and assessment and recovery. The
hurricane resilience of electric power grids is quantified
through a probabilistic modeling approach in [16], using a
Poisson process model for hurricane occurrence, component
fragility models, and a grid restoration model with component
repair priority. The model is then calibrated using actual
customer outage and power grid restoration data in Harris
County, Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike in 2008.

of the component, the distance of the component from the
center of the hurricane, and the category of the hurricane
which is determined based on the wind speed. The rest of the
paper is organized as follows: Section II presents the model
outline and formulation of the proposed machine learning
method for outage prediction. Section III presents simulation
results on a test system, and Section IV concludes the paper.

In many problems, a closed formulation of the problem
and its solution cannot be easily derived. Machine learning
investigates the algorithms that are capable of learning from
and making forecasts from data. These algorithms can
categorize the observed data for classification (supervised
learning), combine similar patterns for clustering
(unsupervised learning), and predict the output of the system
based on its past behavior and historical data (regression
modeling) [17]. Machine learning approaches have been
utilized in a considerable number of research efforts in the
power and energy sector [18]. Security assessment is one of
the most versatile machine learning applications in power
grids with the applications from pattern recognition [18],
decision tree induction, and nearest neighbor classifiers [19],
to name a few. Forecasting arises as another popular
application of machine learning. A number of Artificial
Neural Networks (ANNs) have been proposed for short-term
load forecasting [20] and wind power forecasting [21]. Some
other examples of machine learning applications in power
grids include risk analysis using regression models, ANNs,
and Support Vector Machine (SVM) [22], distribution fault
detection applying ANNs and SVM [23], and power outage
duration prediction using regression models and regression
trees/splines [24].

The details of the SVMs are fully described in the
literature [25], so only a brief introduction to SVM in threedimensional space is presented in this section. Consider m
training samples xiÎR3, i=1,...,m in a binary classification
problem. . The linear decision is function f(x)=sign(wTx+b),
xiÎR3, where w is the weight vector which defines a direction
perpendicular to the hyperplane of the decision function, while
bÎR is a bias which moves the hyperplane parallel to itself.
The optimal decision function given by support vectors is the
solution of the following optimization problem:

This paper proposes a three-dimensional SVM [25] model
to predict the potential power grid component outages in
response to hurricanes. The proposed SVM is trained on
historical data with three features, namely the resiliency index

II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Resilience index is measured by considering the quality of
a component and its performance in a time period before and
after extreme events. The state of a component during a
hurricane can be considered as damaged (component is on
outage) or operational (component is in service). In order to
classify the damage/operational state of each component,
various features borrowed from historical data can be used. In
this paper, a three-dimensional SVM is utilized in order to
determine the state of the components and the decision
boundary between the damaged and operational data points. In
the following, a brief introduction on multi-dimensional SVM
is provided and the features that are used to determine the state
of the components are discussed.
A. Support Vector Machines
SVM is a discriminative classifier that defines a separating
hyperplane between two classes. The best hyperplane in SVM
is considered as the hyperplane with the widest gap between
the classes which decreases the risk of miss-classifying and
increases the generalization of the classifier. This gap is
usually referred to as margin, where SVM intends to
maximize this margin between the classes.

min
s.t.

(

m
1 2
w + cå e b
2
b =1

)

yb wT xb + g ³ 1,-e b ,

e b ³ 0,

b = 1,......, m

(1)

b = 1,......, m

where w is the normal vector to the hyperplane separating
training examples, |g|/||w|| is the perpendicular distance of the
hyperplane from the origin, and c is a penalty parameter.
When c → ∞, SVM does not allow any training errors (hard
margin classification) and when 0 < c < ∞, the model allows
some training errors, and hence allowing separating nonlinear
examples (soft margin). This is a quadratic programming
problem which can be solved for the problem’s Lagrange
duality multiplier aÎR3 as follows:

max a

m
1 m m
(
)
a
a
y
y
x
.
x
+
å å i j i j i i åa i
2 i =1 j =1
i =1

s.t.

m

(2)

0 £ a £ C , å a i yi = 0 .
i =1

In order to solve the duality problem, many analytical
approaches are proposed in the literature, depending on the
size of dataset and memory limitation considerations.
Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO) [26] is one of the
analytic approaches that is used to solve the quadratic
programming (QP) problem (2) in many SVM toolboxes such
as LIBSVM tool in MATLAB [27]. SMO breaks the QP
problem into multiple smaller subproblems, which are then
solved analytically. SMO picks two support vectors, finds
corresponding Lagrange multipliers and repeats this process
until reaching convergence (within a user-defined tolerance)
or a maximum number of iterations.
By solving the duality problem (2), the final hyperplane
only depends on the support vectors (i.e., sample points that
are in the margin) and SVM needs to find only the inner
products between the test samples and the support vectors.
Fig. 1 shows the support vectors and optimal hyperplane in a
separable two-class classification of SVM. In regards to the
objective of this paper, Fig. 1 also shows the support vectors
and optimal hyperplane to separate outage from operational
components based on the associated resiliency index, distance
from the center of the hurricane, and the wind speed.
The idea of the maximum-margin hyperplane, which is
discussed above, is based on the assumption that training data
are linearly separable. To apply SVM to nonlinear data (which
often is the case, especially in the case of the hurricane data),
kernel methods [25] can be used. The idea of a kernel method
(or as sometime called kernel trick) is to map the input space
into a linear separable feature space, usually a higher
dimension, where the linear classifiers can separate two
classes (Fig. 2). Kernel trick simply states that for all x1 and x2
in the input space, a certain function k(x1,x2) can be replaced
as inner product of x1 and x2 in another space. For example, a
Gaussian kernel can be defined as:
k (xi , x j ) = e

-

1
2s 2

xi - x j

2

(3)

where s2 is the parameter of the kernel defined by the user. In
practice, the best kernel is found by experiment while
adjusting kernel parameters via a search method to minimize
the error on a test set.
B. Component Features
A feature, in machine learning, is defined as an individual
measurable property of a phenomenon being observed [17].
Selection of discriminating, independent, and informative
features plays a critical role in the performance of the
classification method. Various features can be defined to
determine the state of the components in response to a
hurricane strike. In [28], the wind speed and the distance of
the each component from the center of the hurricane are
proposed as response to a hurricane.

Figure 1. Support vectors and optimal margin in SVM

Figure 2. The kernel method in SVM. The linearly inseparable data in a
two-dimensional space can be linearly separable in higher dimensions (three
dimensions in this figure)

Although these features are obviously adequately informative,
they do not provide information about the component itself.
Resilience index of components is also an important factor
during weather-related events. Similar to [16], we quantify the
hurricane resilience of the electric power grid using a
probabilistic modeling approach. For the sake of illustration,
only the Poisson process model of hurricane occurrence
during a given time period along with fragility models are
considered in this work. Other factors used in [16] such as DC
power flow, power grid restoration and component repair
priority are not considered in this index. However, the
proposed model is a general framework and can be extended
to other resilience indices. Based on this, hurricanes are
described by a Poisson process of constant rate λh such that the
time interval between successive hurricane events has an
exponential distribution with a probability function of
ìl e - lht
f (t ) = í h
î 0

t³0
t<0

(4)

Similar to [16] and based on historical data from 1900 to
1999 [29], the annual occurrence rate of hurricanes is
considered as λh = 1/7 per year, and the probability of a
hurricane belonging to each category is respectively calculated
as 0.53, 0.19, 0.15, 0.08, and 0.05. In this paper, we consider
resilience index for four components: a) generation units, b)
transmission lines, c) distribution lines, and d) substations. For
their flexible analytical properties, similar fragility models
following a normal distribution, are considered for all four
categories with probabilities of low, moderate, severe, and

complete. Resilience index is then considered as the average
of fragility model and the probability of the hurricane. The
category of hurricane, the distance of each component from
the center of the hurricane, and the calculated components
resilience index are investigated as three main features to
predict the state of each component in response to the
hurricane.

Scale categories with a small Gaussian noise. The features are
normalized to [0,1] based on the maximum considered values
of wind speed and distance. Fig. 3 shows the generated
synthetic data.

C. Evaluation Metrics
There are various evaluation metrics in the literature to
measure the reliability and acceptable performance of a
classification method. Accuracy is the most common measure
of any classification system which is commonly defined as the
number of correct predictions divided by the total number of
samples in the test set. Reporting the general accuracy of
prediction cannot be sufficient as the number of samples may
not balance in the test set. To test the performance of the
obtained decision boundary, the F1-Score [30] will be tested
on the test historical data defined as:
2 PR
(5)
P+R
where P is the number of positive predictions divided by the
total number of positive class values predicted (i.e., precision),
and R is the number of positive predictions divided by the
number of positive class values in the test data (i.e., recall).
For example, in the case of the outage prediction problem,
precision (P) is the number of correctly predicted outages
divided by the total number of predicted outages, and recall
(R) is the number of correctly predicted outages divided by the
total number of actual outages. The F1-Score will be a value
ranging from 0 to 1, where higher values represent a higher
predictive power as a measure of acceptable performance of
the obtained decision boundary.
F1 =

To evaluate the performance of the classifier, usually a
subset of the historical dataset is reserved as holdout sample
for model validation. k-fold cross-validation is a common
validation technique for assessing the results of a classification
system and evaluating how well it can generalize on a dataset
[31]. In k-fold cross-validation, the dataset is randomly
partitioned into k equal sized subsamples. A single subsample
is reserved as the validation/test set, and the other k−1
subsamples are used as training data for the model. This
process is iterated for k times (the number folds), where each
of the k subsamples is used only once for the validation. The k
results from the folds are accordingly averaged to obtain a
single estimation.
III. NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Scarcity of readily available datasets still remains a
challenge for research community and industry practitioners.
However, the limited historical data on past extreme
hurricanes at the component granularity level shall not
preclude methodological developments in critical areas
including in machine learning systems. Therefore, in this
paper, a synthetic set of 1000 sample data is generated to train
the SVM model, considering half of the samples in outage
state and the other half in the operational state. The generated
samples follow a normal distribution function of one-minute
sustained wind speed of different Saffir-Simpson Hurricane

Figure 3. Generated synthetic data for SVM training and validaton

A k-fold cross validation (k=5) is performed to measure
the performance of the proposed model. Different kernels
(linear, polynomial Quadratic, Cubic, and Gaussian) with
various penalty parameters (c=0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100) are
examined. Since the considered dataset is relatively small, an
off-the-shelf SVM model implemented in LibSVM [27] is
used in this paper. In the proposed work, the SMO tolerance
for convergence is set to 1e-3 and the maximum number of
iterations is set to a large value (15000 iterations). In practice,
since the considered dataset is relatively small, it converges in
about 350 iterations for different folds. Table I shows the
average F1-Score for various penalty parameters and kernel
shapes. As it is shown, SVM with Gaussian kernel and c=1
offers the best performance among other settings.
A third order polynomial logistic regression model is also
trained and examined in the same fashion (i.e., k-fold crossvalidation with k=5) to predict the component outages. Table
II compares evaluation metrics of SVM with different kernels
(using penalty parameter c=1) and a third order polynomial
logistic regression model. As shown, among the trained
models, Gaussian kernel SVM had the best overall
classification accuracy with a precision of 0.893, a recall of
0.826, and overall F1-Score of 0.858. Comparing the result of
logistic regression with the proposed SVM indicates that the
proposed SVM approach has a better performance in both
accuracy and F1-Score.
Table III shows confusion matrix of predicting
components as operational and outage using Gaussian kernel
SVM. The proposed model can predict outage and operational
states with the accuracy of 90.2% and 82.6%, respectively.
TABLE I.

AVERAGE F1-SCORE OF SVM WITH VARIOUS PANEALTY
PARAMETERS “C” AND KERNELS USING 5-FOLD CROSS-VALIDATION

Kernel
Linear
Quadratic
Cubic
Gaussian

c=0.1
0.845
0.858
0.855
0.857

c=1
0.845
0.856
0.854
0.858

c=10
0.846
0.855
0.840
0.850

c=100
0.846
0.857
0.754
0.847

TABLE II.

COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF SVM WITH
VARIOUS KERNELS AND THE LOGISTIC REGRESSION METHOD.

Linear SVM
Quadratic SVM
Cubic SVM
Gaussian SVM
Logistic Reg.

Accuracy
0.847
0.863
0.861
0.864
0.809

Precision
0.853
0.898
0.896
0.893
0.815

Recall
0.838
0.818
0.816
0.826
0.798

F1-Score
0.845
0.856
0.854
0.858
0.806

TABLE III.

CONFUSION MATRIX OF CLASSIFYING SYSTEM COMPONENTS
USING GAUSSIAN KERNEL SVM (NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND PERCENTAGE)

Actual

Predicted
Normal

Outage

Normal

451 (90.2%)

49 (9.8%)

Outage

87 (17.4%)

413 (82.6%)

IV. CONCLUSION
Prediction of a component state in response to an extreme
event is a challenging task in practice. In this paper, a three
dimensional SVM was proposed to categorize system
components into two classes of damaged and operational in
response to an upcoming hurricane. The proposed SVM was
trained on historical data with three features related to each
grid component—i.e., the resilience index, the distance of the
component from the center of the hurricane, and the category
of the hurricane (the wind speed). A synthetic set of data was
generated to train the SVM, as the publicly available data on
the impact of hurricanes on power grid components is limited.
Simulation results showed the effectiveness of the proposed
model compared to the results obtained from Logistic
Regression, as a popular benchmark for two-class
classification problem, and further demonstrated its acceptable
performance in reaching high accuracy estimations.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]

L. M. Branscomb, “Sustainable cities: Safety and security,” Technol.
Soc., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 225–234, 2006.
Executive Office of the President, “Economic Benefits of Increasing
Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages-August 2013.”
C. S. Holling, “Resilience and stability of ecological systems,” Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst., pp. 1–23, 1973.
E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, and N. Leveson, Resilience Engineering:
Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom, and T. K. Kelly, “Identifying,
understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies,”
IEEE Control Syst., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 11–25, Dec. 2001.
N. O. Attoh-Okine, A. T. Cooper, and S. A. Mensah, “Formulation of
resilience index of urban infrastructure using belief functions,” Syst. J.
IEEE, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 147–153, 2009.
O. O. Aderinlewo and N. O. Attoh-Okine, “Assessment of a
Transportation Infrastructure System using Graph Theory,” 2013.
A. Arab, A. Khodaei, S.K. Khator, K. Ding, V. Emesih, and Z. Han,
“Stochastic Pre-hurricane Restoration Planning for Electric Power
Systems Infrastructure,” Smart Grid IEEE Trans. On, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
1046–1054, 2015.
A. Arab, A. Khodaei, Z. Han, and S. K. Khator, “Proactive Recovery
of Electric Power Assets for Resiliency Enhancement,” Access IEEE,
vol. 3, pp. 99–109, 2015.

[10] A. Arab, A. Khodaei, S. K. Khator, K. Ding, and Z. Han, “Posthurricane transmission network outage management,” in Proc. IEEE
Great Lakes Symp. Smart Grid New Energy Econ, 2013, pp. 1–6.
[11] A. Arab, A. Khodaei, S. K. Khator, and Z. Han, “Transmission
network restoration considering AC power flow constraints,” in 2015
IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications
(SmartGridComm), 2015, pp. 816–821.
[12] A. Arab, A. Khodaei, S. Khator, and Z. Han, “Electric Power Grid
Restoration Considering Disaster Economics,” 2016.
[13] L. Molyneaux, L. Wagner, C. Froome, and J. Foster, “Resilience and
electricity systems: A comparative analysis,” Energy Policy, vol. 47,
pp. 188–201, 2012.
[14] D. A. Reed, K. C. Kapur, and R. D. Christie, “Methodology for
assessing the resilience of networked infrastructure,” Syst. J. IEEE, vol.
3, no. 2, pp. 174–180, 2009.
[15] M. Ouyang, L. Dueñas-Osorio, and X. Min, “A three-stage resilience
analysis framework for urban infrastructure systems,” Struct. Saf., vol.
36, pp. 23–31, 2012.
[16] M. Ouyang and L. Dueñas-Osorio, “Multi-dimensional hurricane
resilience assessment of electric power systems,” Struct. Saf., vol. 48,
pp. 15–24, 2014.
[17] C. M. Bishop, “Pattern recognition,” Mach. Learn., vol. 128, pp. 1–58,
2006.
[18] C. K. Pang, F. S. Prabhakara, A. H. El-abiad, and A. J. Koivo,
“Security Evaluation in Power Systems Using Pattern Recognition,”
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., vol. PAS-93, no. 3, pp. 969–976,
May 1974.
[19] D. J. Sobajic and Y.-H. Pao, “Artificial neural-net based dynamic
security assessment for electric power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 220–228, 1989.
[20] A. D. Papalexopoulos, S. Hao, and T.-M. Peng, “An implementation of
a neural network based load forecasting model for the EMS,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1956–1962, 1994.
[21] G. N. Kariniotakis, G. S. Stavrakakis, and E. F. Nogaret, “Wind power
forecasting using advanced neural networks models,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 762–767, 1996.
[22] S. D. Guikema, “Natural disaster risk analysis for critical infrastructure
systems: An approach based on statistical learning theory,” Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 855–860, 2009.
[23] D. Thukaram, H. P. Khincha, and H. P. Vijaynarasimha, “Artificial
neural network and support vector machine approach for locating faults
in radial distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 20, no.
2, pp. 710–721, 2005.
[24] R. Nateghi, S. D. Guikema, and S. M. Quiring, “Comparison and
validation of statistical methods for predicting power outage durations
in the event of hurricanes,” Risk Anal., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1897–1906,
2011.
[25] C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, “Support-vector networks,” Mach. Learn.,
vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 273–297, 1995.
[26] J. Platt, “Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training
support vector machines,” 1998.
[27] C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, “LIBSVM: a library for support vector
machines,” ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. TIST, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 27,
2011.
[28] R. Eskandarpour and A. Khodaei, “Machine Learning based Power
Grid Outage Prediction in Response to Extreme Events,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., 2016.
[29] M. Ouyang and L. Dueñas-Osorio, “An approach to design interface
topologies across interdependent urban infrastructure systems,” Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 96, no. 11, pp. 1462–1473, 2011.
[30] C. Goutte and E. Gaussier, “A probabilistic interpretation of precision,
recall and F-score, with implication for evaluation,” in European
Conference on Information Retrieval, 2005, pp. 345–359.
[31] R. Kohavi and others, “A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for
accuracy estimation and model selection,” in Ijcai, 1995, vol. 14, pp.
1137–1145.

