\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
Static state estimation (SE) is performed in modern energy management systems to enhance situational awareness of power system operators.
In static SE, the state refers to the voltage magnitudes and angles of all the vertices of the power system graph.
For the transmission system, which is the focus of this paper, the vertices are the buses inside substations.
In the past decade, intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) called phasor measurement units (PMUs) have been placed in bulk inside the substations to the effect that many transmission systems are completely, and often redundantly, observed by these devices (e.g., see Fig. 1 of \cite{zhang2017design}).
PMUs rely on the global positioning system to provide time-stamped measurements, also known as synchrophasor measurements.
Therefore, estimation performed using measurements that are synchronized in time
is termed \textit{time-synchronized estimation}.

Linear state estimation (LSE) is a time-synchronized estimation in power systems in which the static states are estimated using only using data from PMUs.
Outputs of linear state estimators are preferred over those of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)-based state estimators because of the former's high speed (typically 30 samples/second) and time-synchronized nature.
When a system is fully observed by PMUs, LSE is performed by solving the following equation:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:LSE-model}
z = Hx + e
\end{equation}

In \eqref{eq:LSE-model}, $z \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$ is the measurement vector containing $m$ phasor measurements, $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^{s}$ is the state variable vector to be estimated, where $s$ is the number of unknown states, $H \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times s}$ is the measurement Jacobian matrix relating the measurements with the states, and $e \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$ is the measurement noise.
The LSE solution is typically obtained by minimizing the modeling error in the least squares sense as shown below:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:LSE-sol}
\hat{x}_{\mathrm{LSE}}=(H^TH)^{-1}H^Tz
\end{equation}

In \eqref{eq:LSE-sol}, $\hat{x}_{\mathrm{LSE}}$ is the solution to the maximum likelihood estimation problem under Gaussian noise environments \cite{varghese2022transmission}.
However, it has recently been demonstrated that PMU noise exhibits non-Gaussian characteristics
\cite{ahmad2019statistical,salls2021statistical}.
The primary basis for the non-Gaussian noise in PMU measurements is the instrumentation system of this IED, which comprises instrument transformers, attenuators, burdens, and cables.
As the performance of linear estimation (LSE is an example of linear estimation) can deteriorate in the presence of non-Gaussian measurement noise \cite{principe2010information},
it is important to investigate strategies that can perform time-synchronized SE when non-Gaussian noise is present in the PMU measurements.

Recently, we have demonstrated the ability of machine learning (ML) to perform high-speed time-synchronized SE in distribution systems in presence of non-Gaussian noise in synchrophasor measurements \cite{azimian2021time}. In \cite{azimian2021time}, the ML model that was developed was a \textit{regular} (also called vanilla) deep neural network (DNN).
However, a regular DNN is not explicitly aware of the topology of the power system.
Therefore, it may struggle to maintain its accuracy when the topology of the system changes \cite{azimian2022state}.
In \cite{gotti2021deep}, a TI DNN model was created to identify the topology of transmission systems at high speeds. Such a model could be used as a precursor to a regular DNN created for performing SE in presence of topology changes.
However,
placing two DNNs in a series may deteriorate estimation performance as the errors of the first one will impinge on the next.

In this paper, we investigate if an alternate DNN architecture, namely, graph neural networks (GNNs), can continue
to perform accurate and consistent SE after a topology change and without any subsequent re-training.
GNN is an ML model that
works on non-Euclidean
data defined as a graph \cite{hamilton2020graph}.
The inputs of a GNN are the node feature and adjacency matrices which contain the node and connectivity information of the graph, respectively.
By employing graph-structured data, one can incorporate physical information of the system into the learning process of the GNN \cite{bronstein2017geometric}.
Hence, the GNN's learning process includes knowledge of the data (features) and the topology of the
system. This makes GNNs distinct from other ML models and more suited for handling topology changes.

Because of the unique characteristics of GNNs,
they are gaining popularity in solving different types of power system problems.
In the context of transmission system SE, \cite{yang2022data} combined a Gauss-Newton solver with a GNN model to perform SE using only SCADA data.
Ref. \cite{wu2022state} performed GNN-based SE by combining SCADA and PMU data to create a fully-observed node feature matrix, which is a requirement for GNNs \cite{chen2020learning}.
However, a purely SCADA-based state estimator or a SCADA-PMU hybrid state estimator does not have the advantages of a PMU-only state estimator, namely, \textit{time-synchronized outputs at high speeds}.
Recently, a PMU-only framework has been presented in \cite{kundacina2022state}, which used factor graph-based GNN models for performing SE.
However, the measurement noise was assumed to be Gaussian in \cite{kundacina2022state}, and the impact of topology changes was not analyzed.

In this paper, similar to \cite{kundacina2022state}, we first place PMUs optimally to obtain a fully-observed node feature matrix; however, we do not create a separate
factor-graph (the reason is given in Section \ref{GNN}).
Then, we build a GNN in which the physical connections of the power system are embedded using multiple convolution layers and important node features are extracted via an attention layer, to perform high-speed time-synchronized SE.
Finally, we demonstrate the robustness of the proposed GNN-based state estimator compared with the state-of-the-art for high-speed SE, namely, model-based LSE and regular DNN-based SE, in terms of handling non-Gaussian measurement noise and topology changes, respectively.

\section{Graph Neural Network-based State Estimation}\label{GNN}

An electric grid comprising $n$ buses can be modeled as a graph, $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$, where $\mathcal{V}=\{v_1,\hdots, v_n\}$ is the set of nodes (vertices), and $\mathcal{E}=\{(v_i,v_j)\}\subseteq\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V}$ is the set of edges. Each node represents a feature vector that is included in the node feature matrix, $X \in \R^{n \times f}$, where $f$ denotes the number of features for each node.
Node connectivity is defined in the form of the adjacency matrix,  $\mathrm{A} \in \R^{n \times n}$, whose elements indicate whether pairs of nodes are connected in the graph:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:adjacency}
\mathrm{A_{ij}} = \begin{cases}
  1 \hspace{10pt} (v_i,v_j) \in \mathcal{E}\\
  0 \hspace{10pt} \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

If PMUs are only placed on some of the nodes of the system, there will be missing features in
$X$.
We overcome this problem by
placing PMUs such that all the nodes either have PMUs on them or are adjacent to at least one node that has a PMU on it.
Such optimal locations can be determined from prior literature on optimal PMU placement for LSE (e.g., \cite{pal2013pmu}).
Note that loss of PMU data can result in the feature matrix becoming unobservable.
Contrary to creating a separate factor-graph to overcome this issue as done in \cite{kundacina2022state}, we suggest detecting and replacing bad/missing PMU data \textit{before} it enters the GNN as already done for regular DNNs in \cite{mestav2019bayesian}.

To embed the physical connections of the power system into the GNN model, we use a recursive neighborhood aggregation scheme or message-passing procedure, which occurs inside the hidden layers, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{figure}.
Message-passing aggregates neighboring
nodes’ information based on an aggregation function for every node in the graph.
The type of aggregation used for message-passing determines how messages of neighboring nodes are
combined.
The two aggregation types used in the proposed GNN model are described below.

\textit{Graph Convolution Network (GCN):}
GCN is used to exploit topology information in the system graph by aggregating weighted features in the neighborhood of every node.
It is mathematically defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GCN1}
x^{(k)}_v=\sigma \left( \sum_{u\in\mathcal{N}(v)\cup\{v\} }W^{(k)}\frac{x^{(k-1)}_u}{\sqrt{|\mathcal{N}(v)||\mathcal{N}(u)|}} \right )
\end{equation}
where, $x_v$ and $x_u$ are rows of $X$ corresponding to nodes $v$ and $u$, respectively, $\sigma$ is the rectified linear-unit (ReLU) activation function, $W$ is the learnable weight matrix, $|\mathcal{N}(v)|$ and $|\mathcal{N}(u)|$ are the number of nodes in the neighborhood of $v$ and $u$, respectively, and $k=1,2,\hdots, \mathrm{K}$ refers to the different hidden layers of the GNN.
In each iteration of \eqref{eq:GCN1}, features of every node are updated by propagating the weighted features of its neighboring nodes
to capture the physical connections of the power system graph.

\textit{Graph Attention Network (GAT):}
GAT is used to add importance to specific messages from neighbors of each node in the graph, as opposed to GCN, where all the messages are treated as equally important.
A GAT is formulated as:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:GAT}
x^{(k)}_v=\sigma \left(\sum_{u\in\mathcal{N}(v)\cup\{v\}}\alpha_{vu}W^{(k)}x^{(k-1)}_u \right)
\end{equation}
where, $\alpha_{vu}$ is the level of importance of neighboring node $u$'s message to node $v$, and is calculated as:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:}
\alpha_{vu}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(e_{vu})}{\sum_{u\in\mathcal{N}(v)\cup\{v\}}\mathrm{exp}(e_{vu})}
\end{equation}
where the attention coefficient, $e_{vu}$, is given by,

\begin{equation}\label{eq:7}
e_{vu}=\sigma_{\mathrm{leaky}}(\mathrm{a}^T[W^{(k)}x^{(k-1)}_v \mathbin\Vert W^{(k)}x^{(k-1)}_u])
\end{equation}

In \eqref{eq:7}, $\mathbin\Vert$ refers to the concatenation operation, and $\sigma_{\text{leaky}}$ is the leaky-ReLU activation function. GAT adds the learnable parameter \enquote{$\mathrm{a}$}
to learn the attention (importance) across pairs of nodes during the training process.
The key benefit of using GAT is its ability to assign different levels of importance to different neighbors and obtain a better feature representation for each node, thereby improving estimation performance.

In the last step, the state variables are predicted by applying a linear transformation to the node feature matrix of the $\mathrm{K}^{th}$ layer.
This is mathematically described by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SE}
\hat{y_{i}}=X^{(\mathrm{K})}W^{'}+b^{'}
\end{equation}
where, $X^{(\mathrm{K})}$ is the node feature matrix of the $\mathrm{K}^{th}$ layer, $W^{'}$ and $b^{'}$ are the learnable parameters of the linear layer,  and $\hat{y_{i}}$ is the state estimate obtained using the GNN for the $i^{th}$ train/test sample.
More details about the learning process of the GNNs can be found in \cite{hamilton2020graph}.

The next section demonstrates how the
framework mentioned above enables
the proposed GNN-based state estimator to perform robust time-synchronized SE under different system and sensing conditions.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.485\textwidth]{Figures/Figure1.pdf}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\caption{Proposed GNN model for SE - \textbf{Input}: graph-based data with initial feature values obtained from PMU measurements. \textbf{Hidden layers}: features of every node (orange nodes) are updated in parallel by aggregating neighboring nodes' information (yellow nodes) in each hidden layer. \textbf{Output}: the final graph representation with state estimates that are obtained by applying a linear transformation to the final hidden layer}
\label{figure}
\end{figure}

\section{Simulation Results}\label{Results}

We now showcase the performance of the proposed GNN-based SE approach compared to LSE and a regular DNN-based SE for the IEEE 118-bus system.
Specifically, we verify the robustness of the proposed approach to non-Gaussian noise in the PMU measurements and topology changes in the system.

\subsection{Simulation Setup}\label{Simulation Setup}
To train the proposed GNN-based state estimator, we created 28,000 graph samples to represent different operating conditions (OCs) of the test system. Each graph sample denotes a realistic load consumption scenario
and its corresponding state variable.
The node feature matrix, $X$,
comprises noisy voltage magnitude and phase angles of every bus, and is created from measurements coming from PMUs placed at optimal locations.
32 such locations were identified, which is also sufficient for performing LSE in this system.
Synchrophasor measurements were synthetically generated by solving an AC power flow using MATPOWER.
Note that $X$ is specific to each graph sample, while the adjacency matrix, $\mathrm{A}$, is fixed for all the training samples.

The matrices $X$ and $\mathrm{A}$ are the inputs to the GNN model, and the state variables (noise-free voltage magnitudes and angles) are the outputs.
The GNN structure comprises five GCN and one GAT layer (i.e., a total of six hidden layers), where the GCN layers extract the topology-based information (physical connections), while the GAT layer learns the importance of neighborhood information within the graph.
The number of epochs, learning rate, and optimizer are 1,000, 0.001, and Adam, respectively.
The test data comprises 4,000 distinct graph samples
for every topology (see Section \ref{Numerical Results3} regarding how the different topologies were created).

We used PyTorch and TensorFlow libraries in Python to implement the proposed GNN and the benchmark DNN models, respectively. The LSE was implemented in MATLAB. All simulations were carried out on a high-performance computer with 256 GB RAM, Intel Xeon 6246R CPU at 3.40 GHz, and Nvidia Quadro RTX 5000 16 GB GPU.

\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{Estimation Error Comparison between LSE and GNN-based SE for IEEE 118-bus system}\label{table1}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cc}
\cline{2-5}
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ \rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip}\textbf{Gaussian Noise}}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Non-Gaussian Noise}} \\[2pt] \cline{2-5}
& \rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{MAE} & \textbf{MAPE}  & \textbf{MAE}  & \textbf{MAPE} \\
& \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Phase angle\\(degrees)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Magnitude\\ (\%)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Phase angle\\ (degrees)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Magnitude\\  (\%)\end{tabular}} \\[2pt]  \hline
\rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip}\textbf{LSE}   &  0.1491 & 0.2709 &  0.2466 &  0.4925 \\[2pt]  \hline
\rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{GNN} &  0.0803 &  0.0471 &   0.0957   &  0.0543   \\[2pt]  \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

    \begin{table*}[bp]
    \renewcommand\thetable{III}
    \caption{Comparison of Total MAE between Regular DNN and proposed GNN models for least and most-impactful topology changes in IEEE 118-bus system}\label{table3}
    \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
    \begin{tabular}{cccc||cccc}
    \hline
    \multicolumn{4}{c||}{\rule{0pt}{0.8\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{Least-Impactful Topology (LIT) Changes}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ \rule{0pt}{0.8\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{Most-Impactful Topology (MIT) Changes}}\\[2pt]
    \hlin

    \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Topology}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}From-To buses of\\ the removed line\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\rule{0pt}{0.8\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Total MAE\\ \end{tabular}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Topology}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}From-To buses of\\ the removed line\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\rule{0pt}{0.8\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Total MAE\\ \end{tabular}}} \\[2pt]
    &  & \textbf{Regular DNN} & \textbf{GNN}&  &  & \textbf{Regular DNN}  & \textbf{GNN}\\[2pt] \hline
\rule{0pt}{0.8\normalbaselineskip}\textbf{LIT\_1} & 24 - 70  & 0.03486  & 0.03156 &
    \textbf{MIT\_1} & 8 - 5   & 0.41443  & 0.12325\\
    \textbf{LIT\_2} & 56 - 58  & 0.03627& 0.03578 &
    \textbf{MIT\_2} & 30 - 17   & 0.43034   & 0.09537 \\
    \textbf{LIT\_3} & 100 - 101   & 0.03839   & 0.03323 &
    \textbf{MIT\_3} & 26 - 30    & 0.30842    & 0.13694  \\
    \textbf{LIT\_4} & 14 - 15   & 0.03362  & 0.03263 &
    \textbf{MIT\_4} & 38 - 37    & 0.42496   & 0.22739  \\
    \textbf{LIT\_5} & 32 - 113     & 0.04432  & 0.04104 &
    \textbf{MIT\_5} & 64 - 65   & 0.22054  & 0.07642\\
    \end{tabular}%
    }
    \end{table*}

\subsection{Comparison with LSE}\label{Numerical Results1}
We first compare the performance of the proposed GNN-based state estimator with a linear state estimator in the presence of Gaussian and non-Gaussian noise in PMU measurements.
The non-Gaussian noise was modeled as a two-component Gaussian mixture model, whose mean, standard deviation, and weights for magnitudes and angles are $(-0.4\%, 0.6\%)$ and $(-0.2\degree,0.3\degree)$, $(0.25\%, 0.25\%)$ and $(0.12\degree, 0.12\degree)$ and $(0.4, 0.6)$, respectively \cite{varghese2022transmission}.
The results of the comparison, shown in Table \ref{table1}, indicate
that GNN-based SE performs better than LSE in terms of the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for magnitudes and the mean absolute error (MAE) for angles for both noise models.
The mathematical expressions of MAPE and MAE are,

\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{MAPE} = \frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}} \left | \frac{y_i-\hat{y_i}}{y_i} \right|
\end{split} \ ;
\begin{split}
\mathrm{MAE} = \frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}}|y_i-\hat{y_i}|
\end{split}\tag{9}
\end{align}
where, $\mathrm{N}$ is the number of graph samples, and $y_i$ and $\hat{y_i}$ denote the actual and estimated states, respectively.
The deterioration in the state estimates when the noise model changes from Gaussian to non-Gaussian is particularly acute for the LSE as the error almost doubles.
However, there is only a minuscule difference in the performance of the proposed GNN-based SE when the noise model changes.

\begin{table}[hb]
\renewcommand\thetable{II}
\caption{Estimation Error Comparison between Regular DNN-based SE and GNN-based SE for IEEE 118-bus system}\label{table2}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\cline{2-5}
 & \rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip}\textbf{MAE} & \textbf{MAPE} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{R-Squared}}\\[2pt]
 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Phase angle}\\ {\textbf{(degrees)}}\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Magnitude}\\ {\textbf{(\%)}}\end{tabular} &
 \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Phase angle}\\ {\textbf{(degrees)}}\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Magnitude}\\ {\textbf{(\%)}}\end{tabular} \\[2pt]
\hline
\rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip}\textbf{Regular DNN} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.1253} & 0.0968 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.94} &0.65\\[2pt]
\hline
\rule{0pt}{1\normalbaselineskip} \textbf{GNN} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.0957} &  0.0543 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.97} &0.82\\[2pt]
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table}

\subsection{Comparison with Regular DNN}\label{Numerical Results2}

Next, we compare the performance of the proposed GNN-based state estimator with a regular DNN-based state estimator in presence of non-Gaussian noise in the PMU measurements.
The noise model is identical to the one used in Section \ref{Numerical Results1}.
The DNN has six hidden layers each having 200 neurons, with the other hyperparameters (number of epochs, learning rate, and optimizer) being same as that of the GNN.
The results of this comparison are shown in Table \ref{table2}.
In this table, along with MAE and MAPE, we also compute the $\mathrm{R^2}$-score (called R-squared) for the two-state estimators.
This criterion measures the contribution percentage of the input data to track variation in the output labels, and is mathematically defined as:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:R2} \tag{10}
\mathrm{R^2} = 1- \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}}(y_i-\hat{y_i})^2}{\sum_{i=1}^{\mathrm{N}}(y_i-\bar{y_i})^2}
\end{equation}
where, $\bar{y_i}$
denotes the mean value across all the output labels.
From the higher $\mathrm{R^2}$-scores of the proposed GNN-based state estimator, we can infer that it can track more of the variations occurring in the output labels in comparison to the DNN-based state estimator.
This improved performance
is due to the fact that the GAT layer is able to provide contextual feature representation for each node by focusing on the important parts of the input data and fading out the rest utilizing the ML concept of attention mechanism.

\subsection{Robustness to Topology Changes}\label{Numerical Results3}

Topology change is a common occurrence in the power system, and depending on the impact that the change has on the OC of the system, it can proportionately deteriorate the performance of ML-based estimation.
Hence, in this sub-section, we investigate the sensitivity of the proposed GNN-based SE framework to topology changes in the IEEE 118-bus system.
The regular DNN-based SE used in the previous sub-section provides the baseline.
Both ML models were trained for the base topology.
To create different topologies, we removed one line at a time to identify those single-line outages which caused minimum and maximum alterations from the OC of the base topology, while keeping the system connected.
The alteration was quantified in terms of the power flowing in the rest of the system after the line was disconnected.
The results obtained when this test data is fed into the trained DNN and GNN models are summarized in Table \ref{table3} and Fig. \ref{figure2}.

Table \ref{table3} lists the top five line outages which caused the least impact and the most impact on the OC of the base topology. It also identifies the corresponding line that was disconnected as well as
the combined magnitude and angle estimation errors based on normalized data (denoted by Total MAE in Table \ref{table3}).
It can be observed from the table that for the least-impactful topology changes ($\text{LIT\_1}$ to $\text{LIT\_5}$), the results were similar for the two ML models (in terms of their Total MAE).
However, the GNN-based state estimator consistently outperformed the DNN-based state estimator for the most-impactful topology changes ($\text{MIT\_1}$ to $\text{MIT\_5}$).
This highlights the robustness of the proposed GNN-based approach to topology changes.

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Figure2.pdf}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{Comparing density of estimation error of regular DNN (plots in the top row) and proposed GNN (plots in the bottom row) for the five most-impactful topology changes in the IEEE 118-bus system; (a) and (c) compare the magnitudes, while (b) and (d) compare the angles}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure*}

To better visualize the estimation results associated with the most impactful topology changes, we depicted the distribution of sample estimation error separately for voltage magnitude and phase angle for the two ML models in Fig. \ref{figure2}.
Figs. \ref{figure2}(a) and \ref{figure2}(c) show the voltage magnitude estimation error distribution for the regular DNN and GNN models, while Figs. \ref{figure2}(b) and \ref{figure2}(d) show the estimation error distribution for phase angles for the regular DNN and GNN models, respectively.
The figure indicates
that the regular DNN fails to provide consistent estimates since the distributions of sample estimation errors for both magnitudes and angles spread out over the horizontal axis.
Conversely, in the GNN model, the corresponding error distributions overlap one another to a greater extent indicating that the proposed approach is relatively immune to topology changes.
Lastly, note that as Figs. \ref{figure2}(c) and \ref{figure2}(d) correspond to the most impactful topology changes, they depict the worst performance that the proposed approach will have when a single line outage takes place in the IEEE 118-bus system.

\section{Conclusion}\label{Conclusions}
In this paper, a time-synchronized GNN-based SE framework is presented to estimate the static states of the power system.
The framework combines
GCN and GAT layers account for the physical connections of the system.
The proposed approach is compared with LSE and a regular DNN-based SE in presence of non-Gaussian measurement noise and topology changes.
The results indicate that by using convolution and attention layers, the GNN trained for the base topology is able to perform robust estimation under different system and sensing conditions without any \textit{ex post facto} learning.

The application of GNNs to power systems is still in its infancy.
As such, more research is expected to be conducted in this area in the near future.
We are currently exploring the ability of the proposed GNN-based state estimator to handle bad/missing PMU data.
We also plan to extend the proposed research
by using feature augmentation techniques in order to reduce the number of PMUs needed for satisfying the fully-observed node feature matrix requirement.

\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
{\footnotesize