MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809614028 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2018.2840821

Analysis of Consensus-Based Economic Dispatch Algorithm Under Time Delays

2018· article· en· W2809614028 on OpenAlexaff
Chengcheng Zhao, Xiaoming Duan, Yang Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEconomic dispatchConvergence (economics)Constant (computer programming)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationUpper and lower boundsProtocol (science)Smart gridControl (management)Control theory (sociology)MathematicsElectric power systemPower (physics)EngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under consensus-based economic dispatch (ED) algorithm, multiple agents, which control local generation units, cooperatively minimize the total generation cost subject to the balance of the generation and expected demand in smart grids. As ubiquitous time delays on communication links exist in communication networks, studying the effect of delays on the dispatch performance is of both theoretical merit and practical value for the efficient and stable operation of smart grids. In this paper, we consider a well-developed consensus-based ED protocol under constant time delays. We find that there always exists a sufficiently small learning gain parameter under finite constant delays such that the convergence of the consensus-based algorithm is guaranteed. Further, an analytical expression of the upper bound is established for the learning gain parameter, which is determined by the largest delay, the weight matrix and the parameters of generation cost functions. In order to guarantee the optimality of the final solution, we propose the updating rule for iterations when initial states are not received by their neighbors due to time delays. The optimality of the final solution under the proposed updating rule is analyzed. We validate our theoretical results through extensive simulation studies.

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations66
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics SystemsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207