MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785924033 · doi:10.1109/pesgm.2017.8273801

A cross-entropy-based control variate method for power system reliability assessment

2017· article· en· W2785924033 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl variatesReliability (semiconductor)Monte Carlo methodComputer scienceRandom variateCombingEntropy (arrow of time)Variance reductionCross entropyConvergence (economics)Reliability engineeringVariance (accounting)Electric power systemAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsPower (physics)Artificial intelligenceRandom variableEngineeringMarkov chain Monte CarloPrinciple of maximum entropyHybrid Monte Carlo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a novel non-sequential Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) approach combing the cross-entropy (CE), control variate (CV) and importance sampling (IS) methods to assess the reliability of power system. The basic idea is to select important components that construct a correlated system using the CE method. Because of the strong correlation between the original system and correlated system, the variance of reliability indices for the original system can be reduced by a mixture of CV and IS methods. As a result, the MCS can reach convergence by fewer samples in less time. The Roy Billinton Reliability Test System and IEEE Reliability Test System are used to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed 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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.364 · 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