Optimal Scheduling of Microgrid with Distributed Power Based on Water Cycle Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microgrid, taking advantage of distributed power generation technology, plays an important role in maximizing the utilization of renewable energy. Based on the problems of the energy crisis, environmental contamination and the high operating cost of the microgrid, the microgrid model can effectively ease energy pressure. We can dispatch the output of each part in the microgrid to obtain the optimal economy. Since many traditional optimization algorithms have limitations of local optimization, multiple iterations, and slow convergence speed, this paper proposes a method that applies the Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA) to optimize the dispatch of the microgrid to minimize the operating cost. The mathematical model of each distributed power is established. The interactive power between the microgrid and large grid is also considered. The lowest generation cost considering environmental benefits is taken as the objective function. Water cycle algorithm is implemented to obtain the optimal solution under various constraints. Some optimization algorithms such as Genetic Algorithm (GA), Interior Search Algorithm (ISA), and Differential Search Algorithm (DSA) were used for results evaluation. By comparing the results obtained from four different algorithms, a case study shows the WCA possesses the advancements of better convergence performance, faster calculation and higher precision compared to the other algorithms. The results demonstrate that the WCA applied to determine the optimal scheduling of the microgrid can achieve a better result than some other algorithms with an acceptable accuracy and efficiency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".