MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917436101 · doi:10.1002/aic.16578

A mixed‐integer programming approach for clustering demand data for multiscale mathematical programming applications

2019· article· en· W2917436101 on OpenAlexaff
Falah Alhameli, Ali Elkamel, Alberto Betancourt‐Torcat, Ali Almansoori

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProcess Optimization and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationInteger programmingKey (lock)Industrial engineeringEngineeringMachine learningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Across all sectors within the energy and process industry, tremendous efforts have been devoted toward the development and operation of agile manufacturing techniques to respond to customer needs and volatile markets while at the same time control costs, improve efficiency, and reduce pollution. This has created a demand for systems to solve complex integrated planning and scheduling problems that bridge the gap between the different functional and strategic decision‐making levels. Integration across supply chain decision levels is key to improving investment returns. Different approaches have been proposed to tackle this problem. However, most of them are problem‐specific or applicable only to short time horizons. Clustering has the potential to handle such problems by grouping similar input parameters together and considerably reduce the model size while not compromising solution accuracy. This work presents a new class of clustering algorithms to support the integration of planning applications of different time scales. The clustering algorithms were formulated using integer programming with integral absolute error as similarity measure. The algorithms were successfully applied to clustering electricity demand data and applied to the unit commitment problem. The computational performances of the proposed normal and sequence clustering algorithms were compared against a full planning model that does not employ clustering. The results show a clear advantage in terms of solution time compared to the full‐scale case while maintaining solution accuracy.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicProcess Optimization and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207