MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783167261 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2018.2792938

A Distributionally Robust Chance-Constrained MILP Model for Multistage Distribution System Planning With Uncertain Renewables and Loads

2018· article· en· W2783167261 on OpenAlexafffund
Alireza Zare, C. Y. Chung, Junpeng Zhan, S.O. Faried

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematical optimizationRobustness (evolution)LinearizationRobust optimizationLinear programmingComputer scienceAmbiguityInteger programmingConic sectionAC powerElectric power systemStochastic programmingMathematicsPower (physics)Nonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful transition to active distribution networks (ADNs) requires a planning methodology that includes an accurate network model and accounts for the major sources of uncertainty. Considering these two essential features, this paper proposes a novel model for the multistage distribution expansion planning (MDEP) problem, which is able to jointly expand both the network assets (feeders and substations) and renewable/conventional distributed generators. With respect to network characteristics, the proposed planning model employs a convex conic quadratic format of ac power flow equations that is linearized using a highly accurate polyhedral-based linearization method. Furthermore, a chance-constrained programming approach is utilized to deal with the uncertain renewables and loads. In this regard, as the probability distribution functions of uncertain parameters are not perfectly known, a distributionally robust (DR) reformulation is proposed for the chance constraints that guarantees the robustness of the expansion plans against all uncertainty distributions defined within a moment-based ambiguity set. Effective linearization techniques are also devised to eliminate the nonlinearities of the proposed DR reformulation, which yields a distributionally robust chance-constrained mixed-integer linear programming model for the MDEP problem of ADNs. Finally, the 24-node and 138-node test systems are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed planning methodology.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations160
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207