Co-optimizing High and Low Voltage Systems: Bi-Level vs. Single-Level Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a bi-level optimization framework applied to optimize system performance with (i) increasing presence of distributed energy resources (DER) at the low-voltage level, and (ii) variable wind power generation at the high-voltage level. The paper investigates various system configurations with increasing presence of microgrids, with active devices. System simulations quantify system performance in terms of cost, first using the traditional single-level optimization framework, and second using the proposed bi-level framework. Comparisons between the system with traditional, passive distribution systems and with microgrids are also presented, with results again quantified via the interconnected system operating costs. Results show that at low levels of DER and microgrid penetration, traditional (single-level) system optimization algorithms perform adequately as compared to the proposed bi-level optimization framework. However, as DER and microgrid penetration increase, the traditional single-level framework does not accurately capture the full system benefits of distributed technologies. The results demonstrate that new optimization algorithms, such as the proposed bi-level framework, will be required if the benefits of DER are to be accurately quantified in the evolving power system.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".