Optimal Sizing of Hybrid Energy System Using Random Exploratory Search-Centred Harris Hawks Optimizer with Improved Exploitation Capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the depletion of traditional energy resources, emissions of greenhouse gases, climate change, etc., renewable energy resources (RER) based power generation is becoming the main source of the present and future power sector. The major RERs, including solar, wind, and small hydro, may provide reliable and sustainable solutions in the smart grid environment. Solar and wind energy-based power generation is more prevalent but varies in nature and is not even very predictable very efficiently. Therefore, it has become necessary to integrate two or more RER and develop a hybrid energy system (HES). The HESs provide a cost-effective and reliable power supply with reduced and/or almost negligible greenhouse gas emissions as well. Due to economic and power reliability concerns, the optimal sizing of components is necessary for the development of an optimum HES. In recent years, metaheuristic evolutionary algorithms have been widely used for optimal sizing of HES. Harris hawk’s optimizer (HHO) is a recently devised metaheuristics search method that has the ability to discover global minima and maxima. However, due to its weak exploitation capacity, the basic HHO algorithm’s local search is pretty slow and has a slow rate of convergence. Thus, to boost the exploitation phase of HHO, a new approach, random exploratory search centered Harris hawk’s optimizer (hHHO-ES), has been developed in the present work for optimal sizing of HES. The suggested approach is validated and compared to existing optimization approaches for a variety of well-known benchmark functions, including unimodal, multimodal, and fixed dimensions. Following this, it is used to develop HES, which will be capable of providing power to remote areas where grid supply is scarce. The objective function is formulated using net present cost (NPC) as a prime function under a set of constraints such as bounds of system components and reliability. The obtained results are compared with those from harmony search (HS) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) and found to be better.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".