Evaluation of Dimensionality Reduction Techniques for Load Profiling Application in Smart Grid Environment
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
The traditional power grid system is evolving toward a smart grid system, which will improve the user experience. However, this system is capable of generating high-dimensional data at a very high sample rate. A common technique for reducing high-dimensional data is dimensionality reduction. With this technique, we are able to reduce the data to a lower dimension, making it suitable for smart grid applications including transmission, storage, and visualization. Linear dimensionality reduction techniques are mostly explored in the context of smart grid applications. Due to the nonlinear nature of data generation in the smart grid, we anticipate that the nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques can perform better. This work evaluates different nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques and compares them with principal component analysis, which is a widely used linear dimensionality reduction technique in the smart grid environment. We use the visualization of load profile data and adjusted rank index (ARI) for comparison of dimensionality reduction techniques. Load profiling is an important task to complement the demand-side management and tariff selection. The visual depiction of the load profiles and ARI suggest that the nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques perform better compared with linear dimensionality reduction techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 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