A distributed autonomous approach for bulk power system restoration by means of multi‐agent system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, the electric utility industry worldwide has been facing pressure to be deregulated. Also, the risk of blackout in large areas will increase. Actually, it is still vivid in our memory that the northeastern United States and southern Canada suffered the worst blackout in history. Consequently, a method to find the optimal solution rapidly is needed all the more. In this paper, we propose a new multi‐agent method for a bulk power system restoration. In order to demonstrate the capability of the proposed multi‐agent system, it has been applied to a model bulk power system, which consists of three local areas including 12 generating units and 12 loads, and three remote areas with 12 loads. A large number of simulations are carried out on this model network with changing conditions. The simulation results show that the proposed multi‐agent approach is effective and promising. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Electr Eng Jpn, 164(1): 69–76, 2008; Published online in Wiley InterScience ( www.interscience.wiley.com ). DOI 10.1002/eej.20485
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".