MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021523863 · doi:10.1007/s13675-014-0024-5

Solving wind farm layout optimization with mixed integer programs and constraint programs

2014· article· en· W2021523863 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEURO Journal on Computational Optimization · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationInteger programmingNonlinear programmingConstraint (computer-aided design)Wind powerComputer scienceStochastic programmingNonlinear systemLinear programmingProfit (economics)Optimization problemMathematicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wind farm layout optimization problem is concerned with the optimal location of turbines within a fixed geographical area to maximize profit under stochastic wind conditions. Previously, it has been modeled as a maximum diversity (or p-dispersion-sum) problem, but such a formulation cannot capture the nonlinearity of aerodynamic interactions among multiple wind turbines. We present the first constraint programming (CP) and mixed integer linear programming (MIP) models that incorporate such nonlinearity. Our empirical results indicate that the relative performance between these two models reverses when the wind scenario changes from a simple to a more complex one. We then extend these models to include landowner participation and noise constraints. With the additional constraints, the MIP-based decomposition outperforms CP in almost all cases. We also propose an improvement to the previous maximum diversity model and demonstrate that the improved model solves more problem instances.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
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