MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967548691 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.315

GPU-Accelerated Solutions to Optimal Power Flow Problems

2014· article· en· W1967548691 on OpenAlexaff
Logan Rakai, William Rosehart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLaptopAccelerationReliability (semiconductor)Stability (learning theory)ComputationWork (physics)Power (physics)Hardware accelerationPower flowCUDAComputer engineeringElectric power systemDistributed computingParallel computingEmbedded systemOperating systemField-programmable gate arrayAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimal power flow problem (OPF) has been of importance to power system operators for many decades. Being able to quickly determine optimal operating points and analyzing larger networks can lead to advantages for operators from reliability, stability, cost and market fairness perspectives. This work aims at achieving those ends by solving OPF problems by utilizing hardware acceleration capabilities of graphical processing units (GPUs). At present, nearly all desktop and laptop computers ship with general-purpose GPUs that can be harnessed to accelerate analysis. This work will present important concepts regarding effective use of GPUs as it pertains to OPF problems and illustrate the types of problems that stand to benefit most from their use. The benefits of GPU acceleration are demonstrated by implementing a predictor-corrector interior-point method with the majority of the computation offloaded onto a GPU. Experiments are used to validate the developments by analyzing well-known power systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207