MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037903850 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i08.7027

PIDS: An Intelligent Electric Power Management Platform

2020· article· en· W3037903850 on OpenAlexaff
Yongqing Zheng, Han Yu, Yuliang Shi, Kun Zhang, Shuai Zhen, Lizhen Cui, Cyril Leung, Chunyan Miao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsElectricityElectric power systemComputer scienceConsumption (sociology)Process (computing)Power consumptionPower managementPower (physics)Electric powerDemand responseBusinessEnvironmental economicsOperations researchOperations managementTelecommunicationsRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringEconomicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electricity information tracking systems are increasingly being adopted across China. Such systems can collect real-time power consumption data from users, and provide opportunities for artificial intelligence (AI) to help power companies and authorities make optimal demand-side management decisions. In this paper, we discuss power utilization improvement in Shandong Province, China with a deployed AI application - the Power Intelligent Decision Support (PIDS) platform. Based on improved short-term power consumption gap prediction, PIDS uses an optimal power adjustment plan which enables fine-grained Demand Response (DR) and Orderly Power Utilization (OPU) recommendations to ensure stable operation while minimizing power disruptions and improving fair treatment of participating companies. Deployed in August 2018, the platform is helping over 400 companies optimize their power consumption through DR while dynamically managing the OPU process for around 10,000 companies. Compared to the previous system, power outage under PIDS through planned shutdown has been reduced from 16% to 0.56%, resulting in significant gains in economic activities.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207