MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900475457 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2018.2881254

Line-Wise Optimal Power Flow Using Successive Linear Optimization Technique

2018· article· en· W2900475457 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectric power systemMathematical optimizationPower flowConvergence (economics)Nonlinear systemLinear programmingPower (physics)Line (geometry)Computer sciencePower BalanceControl theory (sociology)Flow (mathematics)Power-flow studyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal power flow (OPF) is an important power systems optimization tool. However, due to the inherent nonlinearity of the solution space, OPF methods may yield a local optimal solution, leading to economic loss. For this reason, an OPF remains a major research topic. Changing power balance equations can change the solution space, alter solution time, and create a chance of reaching a better solution. In this paper, a new simple line-wise optimal power flow (LWOPF) formulation is proposed using line-wise power balance equations and solved using the successive linear programming (SLP) technique. The study results on nine different test systems, up to a 9 241-bus real power system, show that the proposed method is accurate, provides monotonic convergence, scales well for large systems and is consistently faster, up to twice the speed of MATPOWER and other proven bus-wise SLP approaches to solve the OPF.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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