MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910316427 · doi:10.1109/epec.2018.8598460

How to Improve Linear Fuel-Cost Function to Compete with Quadratic and Cubic Functions

2018· article· en· W2910316427 on OpenAlexaff
Ali R. Al-Roomi, M.E. El-Hawary

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiecewiseQuadratic functionPolynomialCubic functionPiecewise linear functionApplied mathematicsQuadratic equationFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsLinear programmingComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To model the operating cost of thermal generating units, it is common to use polynomial relations between their power output and fuel input. These mathematical relations are known as fuel-cost functions, which are the heart of optimization algorithms. These functions could be modeled as first, second, or third order polynomial equations. The first order or linear equation is weak to explain the variability of units' operating cost. Also, the third order or cubic polynomial equation is rarely used in the literature, because its third element does not have any significant contribution to add. Thus, the second order or quadratic polynomial equation becomes the most popular fuel-cost function. Sometimes, different linear equations grouped as a piecewise function are used to accelerate the computational speed and linear programming algorithms can be directly involved. This study tries to achieve the goal of the last approach without using any piecewise function. That is, improving the preceding single linear equation to be a competitive fuel-cost function.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207