Optimizing smart grid operations from the demand side
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As demand for electricity grows in China, the existing power grid is coming under increasing pressure. Expansion of power generation and delivery capacities across the country requires years of planning and construction. In the meantime, to ensure safe operation of the power grid, it is important to coordinate and optimize the demand side usage. In this paper, we report on our experience deploying an artificial intelligence (AI)–empowered demand‐side management platform – the Power Intelligent Decision Support (PIDS) platform – in Shandong Province, China. It consists of three main components: 1) short‐term power consumption gap prediction, 2) fine‐grained Demand Response (DR) with optimal power adjustment planning, and 3) Orderly Power Utilization (OPU) recommendations to ensure stable operation while minimizing power disruptions and improving fair treatment of participating companies. PIDS has been deployed since August 2018. It is helping over 400 companies optimize their power usage through DR, while dynamically managing the OPU process for around 10,000 companies. Compared to the previous system, power outage under PIDS due to forced shutdown has been reduced from 16% to 0.56%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".