Research on Intelligent Recognition Method of Risk Levels of Electricity Marketing Field Operation Types Based on Data Mining
, , , y
21 mar 2025
Acerca de este artículo
Publicado en línea: 21 mar 2025
Recibido: 20 nov 2024
Aceptado: 18 feb 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0560
Palabras clave
© 2025 Lihua Zhang et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Abnormal behavior recognition performance
| Influencing factor | Accuracy rate% | Recall rate% |
|---|---|---|
| Weak light | 91.4 | 96.9 |
| Weak light and sparse | 95.7 | 96.4 |
| Strong light | 92.4 | 97 |
| Strong light, sparse | 97.3 | 96.4 |
| Total | 94.2 | 96.5 |
Test data for the power operation scenario
| Test frame number | Correct number of action frames | Success rate |
|---|---|---|
| 1086 | 1023 | 0.942 |
Training parameters
| Training parameter | Parameter value |
|---|---|
| Training data set | 35 |
| Test data set | 35 |
| Learning rate | 0.3 |
| Iteration number | 50 |
Abnormal behavior identification performance comparison
| Method | Accuracy rate | Processing speed/FPS |
|---|---|---|
| Light flow method | 90.52 | 8.82 |
| Motion Instability | 92.36 | 11.69 |
| Support vector machine | 80.63 | 16.8 |
| Markov | 83.55 | 15.06 |
| This algorithm | 93.87 | 18.33 |
The algorithm actually runs the data
| Total frame number | Inverted action frame number | Successful identification number | Success in identifying reverse times | Overall accuracy | Reverse recognition accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 342 | 98 | 334 | 95 | 0.928 | 0.965 |
| 2 | 262 | 75 | 248 | 78 | 0.936 | 0.966 |
| 3 | 428 | 167 | 387 | 155 | 0.932 | 0.963 |
The cause of the power operation accident
| Accident category | Serial number | Precondition | Results | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electrical shock (R1) | 1 | A13,D13 | C22 | 0.902 |
| 2 | C22,D32 | R1 | 0.991 | |
| 3 | D22 | D32 | 0.829 | |
| 4 | F12,F13 | A13 | 0.969 | |
| 5 | D12 | B21 | 0.993 | |
| 6 | A13,D12 | A33 | 0.92 | |
| 7 | A33,D12 | C13 | 0.944 | |
| 8 | B21,C13 | R1 | 0.997 | |
| 9 | F14 | C21 | 0.84 | |
| 10 | A32,E13 | R1 | 0.996 | |
| 11 | A13,C21 | A32 | 0.944 | |
| Object strike(R2) | 12 | A33,D41 | C11 | 0.944 |
| 13 | A13 | A33 | 0.815 | |
| 14 | F12,F13 | A13 | 0.964 | |
| 15 | D14 | B22 | 1.000 | |
| 16 | A33,D14 | C11 | 0.938 | |
| 17 | B22,C11 | R2 | 1.000 | |
| High fall(R3) | 18 | D21,D31 | A22 | 0.959 |
| 19 | F14 | C21 | 0.927 | |
| 20 | C21,E14 | B23 | 0.998 | |
| 21 | A22,B23 | R3 | 1.000 | |
| 22 | F11 | A12 | 0.901 | |
| 23 | E22 | B14 | 0.92 | |
| 24 | A12 | A51 | 0.983 | |
| 25 | A51 | B14 | 0.841 | |
| 26 | D11,B14 | R3 | 0.996 | |
| 27 | D33,A13 | A33 | 0.936 | |
| 28 | F12,F13 | A13 | 0.964 | |
| 29 | A33,D11 | C12 | 0.82 | |
| 30 | C12,D11 | R3 | 1.000 |
The accuracy and recall rate of three kinds of actions
| Precision | Recall | |
|---|---|---|
| 0.Sit down | 0.71 | 0.81 |
| 1. Standing | 0.94 | 0.86 |
| 2.Inversely | 0.69 | 0.96 |
The cause of the power operation is a frequent collection
| Accident category | Frequent set | Support |
|---|---|---|
| Electrical shock (R1) | {A13,C22,D13,D22,D32,F12,F13,R1} | 0.185 |
| {A13,A33,B21,C13,D12,F12,F13,R1} | 0.196 | |
| {A13,A32,C21,E13,F12,F13,F14,R1} | 0.221 | |
| Object strike(R2) | {A13,A33,B22,C11,D41,F12,F13,R2} | 0.301 |
| {A13,A33,B22,C11,D14,F12,F13,R2} | 0.337 | |
| High fall(R3) | {A22,B23,C21,D21,D31,E14,F14,R3 | 0.168 |
| {A12,A51,B14,D11,E22,F11,F12,R3} | 0.184 | |
| {A13,A33,C12,D11,D33,F12,F13,R3} | 0.335 |
Data training results
| Iteration rotation | Mean loss | Top1 accuracy | Top5 accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 4.6245 | 11.26% | 32.76% |
| 20 | 4.5156 | 14.45% | 29.43% |
| 30 | 3.8516 | 19.57% | 42.72% |
| 40 | 3.457 | 26.77% | 48.67% |
| 50 | 3.3162 | 25.66% | 50.42% |
| 60 | 3.562 | 31.22% | 54.10% |
