# Knowledge-Graph-Based Integrated Line Loss Evaluation Management System
## 5 Construction of a Mapping of Management Cases for Comprehensive Line Loss Evaluation
### Data Analysis and Experimental Platform
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**First-Level Indicators** & **First-Level Weight** & **Secondary Indicators** & **Second-Level Weight** & **Comprehensive Weight** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Planned loss reduction} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.2532} & Main variable capacity-to-load ratio & 0.0366 & 0.0093 \\  & & The pass rate of reactive power configuration of substation & 0.2476 & 0.0627 \\  & & Unplanned outage rate of distribution lines & 0.2117 & 0.0536 \\  & & Public change outage rate & 0.5041 & 0.1276 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Manage loss reduction} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.4792} & The proportion of old low-voltage energy meters & 0.2866 & 0.1373 \\  & & The proportion of automatic meter reading & 0.0131 & 0.0063 \\  & & Data acquisition integrity rate of four types of terminals & 0.2866 & 0.1373 \\  & & The rate of emergency repair orders for hundreds of households & 0.2460 & 0.1179 \\  & & Electricity sales growth rate & 0.1678 & 0.0804 \\  & & The success rate of automatic execution of fee control & 0.5006 & 0.1340 \\ \hline Operation loss reduction & 0.1377 & Power factor pass rate & 0.4356 & 0.1166 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Technical loss reduction} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.1299} & Availability rate of substation reactive power compensation device & 0.0136 & 0.0037 \\  & & Energy-saving main variable ratio & 0.0502 & 0.0134 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Entropy weight analysis of the influencing factors. the entropy weighting method in ensuring the objectivity of the weights attributed to the evaluation indicators. As illustrated in Table 4, the investigation was conducted utilizing the rank correlation coefficient. The rank correlation coefficient, also referred to as the Spearman correlation coefficient, is a statistical measure derived by ordering the sample values of the two variables in accordance with their magnitude and replacing the original data with the rank of the sample values. \[\mathrm{p}=1-\frac{6}{\mathrm{n}(\mathrm{n}^{2}-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{d}_{i}^ {2} \tag{16}\]  
The \(t\)-test for the rank correlation coefficient \(\rho\) was performed using the following equation for \(n>8\). The test statistic is  
\[t=\sqrt{n-2p}/\sqrt{1-p^{2}} \tag{17}\]  
If \(t\leq t_{n/2}(n-2)\), it can be assumed that the results under the ablation evaluation method are not closely related to those analyzed; otherwise, the results of the combined evaluation are considered to be closely related to those of the original method. As a result, the rank correlation coefficients between the original combination evaluation results and the DEMATEL-TOPSIS method and Entropy Weight-TOPSIS method are calculated to be 0.9512, 0.8593, and 0.6440, respectively; the corresponding \(t\)-values are 16.6018, 14.0463, and 13.5327, respectively; and the significance level of \(a=0.05\) corresponding to the critical value of the test is \(t_{a/2}(n-2)=t_{0.025}(29)=2.045\). It is easy to judge that the results of DEMATEL-Entropy Weight-TOPSIS combination evaluation are closely related to the results of expert judgement. The evaluation scores of line loss management capability of the sample companies in 2014 exhibited considerable variation. Through the application of clustering and stratification techniques, the top six companies in the stronger category of line loss management capability were assigned to Category A, the bottom four companies in the weaker category were designated as Category C, and the remaining companies were placed in the medium stratum. The four companies with the strongest line loss management capabilities are HEC, QZ, BH, and GG. HEC has the highest overall score for line loss management capability in 2014, indicating that the enterprise's overall line loss management capability is in a favorable position. YL has a line loss management capability score of 0.5854, which places it in the second tier. The line loss management capability situation is therefore in the average strength and the second tier of enterprises.