MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507553941 · doi:10.1109/tsipn.2016.2607123

Optimal Power Allocation for Hybrid Energy Harvesting and Power Grid Coexisting System With Power Upper Bounded Constraints

2016· article· en· W2507553941 on OpenAlexaff
Peter He, Lian Zhao, Bala Venkatesh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationComputer sciencePower (physics)Convex optimizationGridEnergy harvestingElectric power systemEnergy (signal processing)Power budgetMathematicsRegular polygon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the green energy resources, the technique of energy harvesting harnesses energy from its surrounding environment. In this setting, a power grid is also utilized to serve as a supplementary source to regulate the not-so-stable harvested energy supply of the system. The power allocated to the user(s) from the sum of the harvested energy and the power grid is subject to peak power constraints. The background of these constraints comes from field requirements, such as avoiding the saturation of power allocated to the user(s), avoiding system level out-of-band power leakage, and reducing interference with other transmitter(s) due to the nonlinearity generated via the transmitting mechanisms to the user(s). The proposed problem considers simultaneously 1) the hybrid paradigm of both energy harvesting and grid power supplies, and 2) the peak power constraints in such systems. For our proposed problem, the most efficient known-to-date and popular convex optimization method of primal-dual interior method (PD-IPM) only computes an € solution, not an optimal solution, even with more computations. The novelty of the proposed algorithms is that they compute the exact solutions with the low degree polynomial computational complexity. To the best of the authors' knowledge, under the same assumptions, no prior publication, including PD-IPM, can arrive at such results. Numerical examples also illustrate efficiency of the proposed algorithms.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over NetworksSame topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207