MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102482069 · doi:10.1109/mper.2001.4311382

On a Nonlinear Multiple-Centralitycorrections Interior-Point Method for Optimal Power Flow

2001· article· en· W2102482069 on OpenAlexaff
G.L. Torres, V.H. Quintana

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterior point methodNonlinear systemNonlinear programmingMathematical optimizationLinear programmingPredictor–corrector methodLogarithmComputer sciencePower flowSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmPower (physics)MathematicsElectric power system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale nonlinear optimal power flow (OPF) problems have been efficiently solved lately by extensions from linear programming to nonlinear programming of the primal-dual logarithmic barrier interior-point method and its predictor-corrector variant. Motivated by the impressive performance of the nonlinear predictor-corrector extension, in this paper we extend from linear programming to nonlinear OPF the efficient multiple centrality corrections (MCC) technique that was developed by Gondzio. The numerical performance of the proposed MCC algorithm is evaluated on a set of power networks ranging in size from 118 buses to 2098 buses. Extensive computational results demonstrate that the MCC technique is fast and robust, and outperforms the successful predictor-corrector technique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power Engineering ReviewSame topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207