MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167888454 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2021.3077213

Robust Control Strategies for Microgrids: A Review

2021· review· en· W3167888454 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Systems Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl (management)Computer scienceControl engineeringControl theory (sociology)EngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microgrids consisting of photovoltaic (PV) power plants and wind farms have been widely accepted in power systems for reliability enhancement and power loss reduction. Microgrids are capable of providing voltage and frequency support, improving power quality, and achieving proper power-sharing. To achieve such goals and deal with the nonlinear behavior in such systems, appropriate robust control strategies are required to be adopted. This article presents a comprehensive review of robust control methods for microgrids, including AC, DC, and hybrid microgrids, with different topologies and different types of interconnection to conventional power systems based on recently published research studies. The main control objectives, along with proposed control methods, are comparatively discussed for different types of microgrids. Furthermore, several research gaps in this area related to the scalability, robustness assessment, and evaluation approach are discussed. Recommendations are made that can potentially open new research lines to enhance the effectiveness of robust controllers for AC, DC, and hybrid microgrids.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.230 · 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