MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387641564 · doi:10.1049/stg2.12136

Control coordination in inverter‐based microgrids using AoI‐based 5G schedulers

2023· article· en· W4387641564 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Biplav Choudhury, Ardavan Mohammadhassani, Brady Alexander, Rahul Iyer, Ali Mehrizi‐Sani, Jeffrey H. Reed, Vijay K. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Smart Grid · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeOffice of Energy EfficiencyDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsManitoba HydroU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceMicrogridScheduling (production processes)Latency (audio)SlicingCo-simulationDistributed computingGridEmbedded systemReal-time computingControl (management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A coordinated set point automatic adjustment with correction enabled (C‐SPAACE) framework that uses 5G communication for real‐time control coordination between inverter‐based resources (IBR) in microgrids is proposed. Utilising slicing capability, 5G offers low‐latency communication to C‐SPAACE under normal conditions. However, given the multitude of power grid use cases, a certain 5G slice for C‐SPAACE may have access only to limited radio spectrum resources, which if not managed well, greatly undermines the communication needs of C‐SPAACE framework. Thus, optimally scheduling the available spectrum resources among IBRs in a sliced 5G network‐based C‐SPAACE framework becomes a critical problem. To address this issue, the authors utilise a novel age of information (AoI) metric and designs an AoI‐based 5G scheduler to provide low‐latency communication to C‐SPAACE. Following this, a co‐simulation environment is designed using PSCAD/EMTDC and Python to simulate a microgrid supported by 5G communication. Time‐domain simulation case studies are performed using the proposed co‐simulation environment to evaluate the performance of C‐SPAACE using 5G with both AoI‐based and other baseline (non‐AoI) schedulers.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
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

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Smart GridSame topicAge of Information OptimizationFrench-language works237,207