MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distributed Energy Sources Management using Shuffled Frog-Leaping Algorithm for Optimizing the Environmental and Economic Indices of Smart Microgrid

2024· article· en· W4392942907 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Gouda, Hamed H. Aly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrogridComputer scienceDistributed generationEnergy managementEnergy (signal processing)AlgorithmDistributed computingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringRenewable energyMathematicsControl (management)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When employing renewable energy within a smart micro grid (SMG), the management of distributed energy resources (DER) plays a crucial role in optimizing practical objectives of SMG. This study utilizes the Shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) to manage DER and implement demand response programs (DSP), aiming to optimize economic, technical and environmental problems of SMG. The modeling of renewable energy resources (RES) is a challenge due to its uncertainty, therefore, cumulative distribution function (CDF) is used for predicting the energy sources before its integration with SMG. The DER included in this study consists of the wind and solar energy, battery, micro turbine and the utility. This model is implemented in three different scenarios: a) basic grid operation, b) operation with maximum usage of renewable energy resources, c) operation with maximum usage of RES and DRP. The results obtained show the superiority of proposed SFLA algorithm in terms of avoiding pre-mature convergence which is a common challenge in optimization, and achieving global optimum for the proposed objectives. For validation, this model is implemented in MAT LAB considering different constraints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207