MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116201169 · doi:10.1109/pess.2000.867422

Radial basis function based identifiers for adaptive PSSs in a multi-machine power system

2002· article· en· W2116201169 on OpenAlexaff
O.P. Malik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifierInitializationComputer scienceRadial basis functionController (irrigation)Artificial neural networkControl theory (sociology)Power (physics)Artificial intelligenceControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effectiveness of self-tuning adaptive power system stabilizers (APSSs) has been demonstrated in the literature. A self-tuning control algorithm consists of an identifier and a controller. As the algorithmic based identifiers require a relatively long computation time, investigations are being conducted to replace these with neural network based identifiers. In an interconnected power system, the generating units have different characteristics and sizes necessitating different pre-trained identifiers. Data gathered at various operating conditions and disturbances are used to train the RBF identifiers. The standard procedure for obtaining the centers for RBF identifiers involves initialization of the centers to random points in the input space. The centers are then updated using recursive rules. One limitation of this procedure is that even though the RBF centers learn the distribution of the input vectors by minimizing the distance between input vectors and the centers, they take long training time or fail to learn the topology of the input vectors. To overcome this limitation, an algorithm that creates RBF centers one at a time is described in this paper. Simulation studies on a five machine power system illustrate the effectiveness of this approach to the design of APSSs.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207