Two stages K‐means and PSO‐based method for optimal allocation of multiple parallel DRPs application & deployment
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it