MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319303160 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2023.3234077

A Condition Knowledge Representation and Feedback Learning Framework for Dynamic Optimization of Integrated Energy Systems

2023· article· en· W4319303160 on OpenAlexaff
Tianyu Wang, Jun Zhao, Henry Leung, Wei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Scheduling (production processes)Partition (number theory)Mathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceState-space representationState spaceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An optimal energy scheduling strategy for integrated energy systems (IESs) can effectively improve the energy utilization efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. Due to the large-scale state space of IES caused by uncertain factors, it would be beneficial for the model training process to formulate a reasonable state-space representation. Thus, a condition knowledge representation and feedback learning framework based on contrastive reinforcement learning is designed in this study. Considering that different state conditions would bring inconsistent daily economic costs, a dynamic optimization model based on deterministic deep policy gradient is established, so that the condition samples can be partitioned according to the preoptimized daily costs. In order to represent the overall conditions on a daily basis and constrain the uncertain states in the IES environment, the state-space representation is constructed by a contrastive network considering the time dependence of variables. A Monte-Carlo policy gradient-based learning architecture is further proposed to optimize the condition partition and improve the policy learning performance. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, typical load operation scenarios of an IES are used in our simulations. The human experience strategies and state-of-the-art approaches are selected for comparisons. The results validate the advantages of the proposed approach in terms of cost effectiveness and ability to adapt in uncertain environments.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207