MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298307398 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1710.09924

Optimal Ensemble Control of Loads in Distribution Grids with Network\n Constraints

2017· preprint· en· W4298307398 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Chertkov, Deepjyoti Deka, Yury Dvorkin

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Demand responseMarkov chainPower (physics)Dual (grammatical number)Process (computing)Control (management)EngineeringMathematicsElectricityElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible loads, e.g. thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs), are\ntechnically feasible to participate in demand response (DR) programs. On the\nother hand, there is a number of challenges that need to be resolved before it\ncan be implemented in practice en masse. First, individual TCLs must be\naggregated and operated in sync to scale DR benefits. Second, the uncertainty\nof TCLs needs to be accounted for. Third, exercising the flexibility of TCLs\nneeds to be coordinated with distribution system operations to avoid\nunnecessary power losses and compliance with power flow and voltage limits.\nThis paper addresses these challenges. We propose a network-constrained,\nopen-loop, stochastic optimal control formulation. The first part of this\nformulation represents ensembles of collocated TCLs modelled by an aggregated\nMarkov Process (MP), where each MP state is associated with a given power\nconsumption or production level. The second part extends MPs to a multi-period\ndistribution power flow optimization. In this optimization, the control of TCL\nensembles is regulated by transition probability matrices and physically\nenabled by local active and reactive power controls at TCL locations. The\noptimization is solved with a Spatio-Temporal Dual Decomposition (ST-D2)\nalgorithm. The performance of the proposed formulation and algorithm is\ndemonstrated on the IEEE 33-bus distribution model.\n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207