MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793602 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-228

Research on the application of BP algorithm incorporating GWO in distributed energy storage scheduling optimization

2025· article· en· W4409793602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOptimization algorithmScheduling (production processes)Energy storageDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed energy storage technology can effectively solve the load peak-to-valley difference and voltage quality problems faced by distribution networks.Reasonable and efficient scheduling of distributed energy storage in distribution networks is an important means to play its role.The study proposes a power prediction-based optimized scheduling strategy for distributed energy storage in distribution grids with hierarchical zoning.Firstly, power prediction is carried out using GWO-EEMD-BP neural network.Then partition optimization is carried out according to distributed power and load distribution, and the energy storage scheduling strategy is formulated based on the energy storage power prediction interval.Finally, experiments and arithmetic examples are analyzed based on the data related to the distribution system of the IEEE-33 distribution node.The predicted SOC values based on GWO-EEMD-BP neural network are basically consistent with the real SOC values.After applying the energy storage scheduling strategy designed in this paper, the system power loss decreased by 260.86 kWh and the load volatility decreased by 67.5%.In addition, this strategy has significant advantages in terms of system operation economic efficiency and voltage quality improvement, and it is capable of scheduling distributed energy storage in the distribution network in a reasonable manner.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicAdvanced Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207