Coupling Load-Following Control With OPF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the optimal power flow (OPF) problem is augmented to account for the costs associated with the loadfollowing control of a power network. Load-following control costs are expressed through the linear quadratic regulator (LQR). The power network is described by a set of nonlinear differential algebraic equations (DAEs). By linearizing the DAEs around a known equilibrium, a linearized OPF that accounts for steadystate operational constraints is formulated first. This linearized OPF is then augmented by a set of linear matrix inequalities that are algebraically equivalent to the implementation of an LQR controller. The resulting formulation, termed LQR-OPF, is a semidefinite program which furnishes optimal steady-state setpoints and an optimal feedback law to steer the system to the new steady state with minimum load-following control costs. Numerical tests demonstrate that the setpoints computed by LQR-OPF result in lower overall costs and frequency deviations compared to the setpoints of a scheme where OPF and load-following control are considered separately.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".