MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742356686 · doi:10.1109/isie.2017.8001468

Evaluation of meta-heuristic optimization methods for home energy management applications

2017· article· en· W2742356686 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Guzmán, Alben Cardenas, Kodjo Agbossou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParticle swarm optimizationHeuristicsMathematical optimizationOptimization problemHeuristicMeta heuristicMulti-swarm optimizationReduction (mathematics)Variable (mathematics)ComputationMetaheuristicAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Home energy management (HEM) requires optimization techniques to solve multi-variable and multi-objective problems. The optimal use of energy, the occupants comfort, the reduction of peak power and energy cost are objectives with dissimilar variables behaviors. Their solutions increase in complexity with the number of variables which would be a challenge if the real-time response is needed. Meta-heuristics optimization techniques offer great potential for the solution of such complex optimization problems, however, their main inconvenient is that a non negligible number of iterations must be executed which is reflected in a heavy computation loops and high resources utilization. In this paper, three meta-heuristic optimization algorithms are studied and evaluated focusing on HEM applications. As the better feasible option among them, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) method have been selected and applied to the comfort control in the residential environment. To achieve the real-time execution of the computational burden of the MPC-PSO implementation, the advantage of VLSI parallelism is used. The FPGA in the loop co-simulation results, using real data of an occupied house, demonstrate the potential of the implemented algorithm and future multi-objective target.

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)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207