Two stages K‐means and PSO‐based method for optimal allocation of multiple parallel DRPs application & deployment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different types of Demand Response Programmes (DRPs) exist and can be simultaneously offered by the electrical utilities through established contracts with customers. Operating simultaneously multiple types of DRPs might lead to undesired results. DRPs might have different responses to objectives, time‐based ones tend to maximise consumption during lowest tariffs periods while incentive‐based ones tend to reduce the usage based on peak events, accordingly contradiction might occur. Thus, synchronising these DRPs and their parameters through an optimised process including customer selection for the appropriate one is a mandatory step. A fair allocation of the various types of DRPs including their execution's priority at a specific time is the main objective of this study. An original approach based on clustering technique for predicting customers' behaviour coupled with a particle swarm optimisation (PSO) to reach an optimal solution for relocation is presented. In this study, an optimal solution is developed; it provides the various DRPs with the most convenient parameters for the best demand/generation balance, utility profit maximisation and operational cost minimisation. The method is validated through a simulation applying a time‐based with two incentive‐based DRPs in the presence of conventional and renewable generation while using Kmeans clustering and PSO on Matlab.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".