MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971414764 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0594

Three‐based level model to determine optimal scheduling of the MG integrated operation using Benders decomposition

2019· article· en· W2971414764 on OpenAlexaff
Farhad Kouhian, Ali Zangeneh, José R. Martí

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenders' decompositionScheduling (production processes)DecompositionMathematical optimizationComputer scienceReliability engineeringMathematicsEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, an optimal scheduling model is proposed to perform energy management in a microgrid (MG) including distributed energy resources in both grid‐connected and islanded modes. To this end, a tri‐level optimization model has been presented, in which Benders method decomposes the original problem into the main problem (the first level), sub‐problem (SP) (the second level) and optimal SP (the third level). The first and second levels model the MG operation in grid‐connected and islanded modes, respectively. Finally, the third level directs the obtained feasible solution of the second level to an optimal solution in the islanded mode. In the proposed model, the effect of an adjacent MG is also considered, and a call‐option contract is used to model the transaction power between networked MG. While it is assumed that they are connected to each other, they only exchange power in the islanded mode to prevent the arbitrage state. The aim of the proposed model is to present a flexible and integrated operation of the MG, which has the ability to work in both grid connected and island modes. Uncertainties of the problem are modelled using the two‐point estimation method (2 m + 1).

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Generation Transmission & DistributionSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207