Data Leakage Inflates Generalizability of Power Outage Prediction Models
Authors: Yamil Essus, Ranga Raju Vatsavai, Benjamin Rachunok
Organizations: Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada · Computer Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC · Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC · Operations Research Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Power outage prediction models are increasingly used in assessments of climate-driven infrastructure risk, yet current evaluation practices obscure whether these models generalize to the novel conditions such applications require. We identify three common methodological choices in power outage prediction models that influence their ability to generalize across spatial, temporal, and event-based settings. We compare the predictive performance impacts of different methodological decisions using publicly available data for the U.S. East Coast from 2018 to 2023 and feature sets derived from weather reanalysis and land-cover data, and embeddings from a GeoAI foundation model (Prithvi WxC). Specifically, we assess model performance under multiple test selection strategies, including unfiltered random splits, leave-one-state-out, and leave-one-event-out designs, which increasingly approximate real-world deployment conditions. While random train-test splits yield strong performance, we show that these results are inflated by spatial and temporal autocorrelation. Under spatial and temporal holdout experiments, predictive accuracy degrades substantially, with models often failing to outperform a simple null baseline. Incorporating GeoAI foundation model embeddings yields limited and inconsistent improvements, primarily for spatial generalization, and does not resolve poor event-level transferability. These findings suggest that, given current data availability and evaluation practices, publicly trained outage prediction models offer limited and uncertain operational value. Progress will likely require improved data coverage, more realistic evaluation protocols, and a shift in focus from marginal modeling advances toward addressing structural data constraints.
Figures & tables
Feature
Abbreviation
Source
Temperature Dew Point
d2m
ERA5 - Single Levels
Temperature
t2m
ERA5 - Single Levels
Wind Gust
i10fg
ERA5 - Single Levels
Mean Large-Scale Precipitation Rate
mlspr
ERA5 - Land
Wind Speed
u10 and v10
ERA5 - Land
Volumetric Soil Water
swvl1-4
ERA5 - Land
Table 1: Features used to train the predictive models. All features were aggregated to a county-day resolution using an average spatial join operation between point features and county polygons. The max function was used for temporal aggregation.
Figure 1: Example of interpolation procedure. (a) Prithvi WxC embedding dimension 4 at original resolution, (b) bilinear interpolation of embedding that covers the extent of the study area, and (c) county-day average for this sample computed as the mean of the interpolated values.
Figure 2: Strategies for selecting a test set. In each subfigure, an example for each strategy is provided. Counties in orange would be chosen as the test set. (a) Example of random split strategy using 80-20 ratio, (b) Leave-state-out strategy, North Carolina in this case, and (c) Leave-event-out, which selects the entire study region as test set, for a specific date.
Figure 3: Performance of random split experiment for each feature set and target variable as percentage of variance in the dependent variable that is accounted for in the model ( R2 ).
R2
MAE
pCoP
CoP
pCoP
CoP
ERA5
0.44 ± 0.01
0.32 ± 0.07
0.06 ± 0.00
1,807.20 ± 48.13
ERA5 + Tree Density
0.45 ± 0.01
0.36 ± 0.04
0.06 ± 0.00
1,796.08 ± 47.62
Prithvi
0.49 ± 0.01
0.33 ± 0.04
0.05 ± 0.00
1,720.44 ± 32.31
Table 2: 95-percent confidence interval for R2 and mean absolute error ( MAE ) performance metrics for each experiment in the 80-20 split category.
Figure 4: Mean absolute error for the leave-state-out experiment for each target variable ( pCoP and CoP ), feature set and state. Lower is better. In each case, MAE of using a null model is labeled, and the positive or negative difference between the weather model and the null model is presented in grey or red, respectively.
Figure 5: Results of the leave-event-out experiment as the difference in Mean Absolute Error between the trained model and null model. Higher is better.
Figure 6: Results of the leave-event-out experiment as difference in Mean Absolute Error between null model and the best trained model among all feature sets in each case, colored by event type. Higher is better.
Target Variable
Feature Set
Test Type
# of test sets
Avg. Test MAE
CoP (absolute)
ERA5 (No static features)
80-20 Split
20
1,807.202
Spatial LOO
13
2,185.835
Temporal LOO
28
2,766.400
ERA5 + Tree Density (Static features)
80-20 Split
20
1,796.083
Spatial LOO
13
2,235.405
Temporal LOO
28
2,674.593
Table 3: Summary of experimental design and average Mean Absolute Error. Different test types produce different number of test sets. Spatial Leave-One-Out experiments are conducted by leaving all the data from a single State out of training and used for testing. Temporal Leave-One-Out experiments leave data for a given date out of training and used for testing.
Type
Date
Name
CoP
pCoP
Best Features
MAE
Best Features
MAE
Hurricane
2018-09-14
Florence
Prithvi
3,060.08
ERA5
0.09
Hurricane
2018-10-11
Michael
Prithvi
4,028.98
ERA5 + Tree Density
0.17
Hurricane
2020-08-04
Isaias
ERA5
3,452.35
ERA5 + Tree Density
0.11
Hurricane
2020-10-29
Zeta
ERA5
4,388.31
ERA5
0.08
Hurricane
2022-09-29
Ian
ERA5 + Tree Density
6,448.92
ERA5
0.05
Table 4: Detailed results of the leave-event-out experiment for the best feature set in each run.