MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multi-objective Ant Lion Optimizer for Optimal Distribution Network Reconfiguration

2025· article· W7125226708 on OpenAlexaff
Haïfa Souifi, Hsan Hadj Abdallah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSortingGenetic algorithmReliability (semiconductor)Control reconfigurationParticle swarm optimizationMulti-objective optimizationAnt colonyPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the multi-objective distribution network reconfiguration (DNR) problem was addressed using a multi-objective Ant Lion Optimizer (MOALO) algorithm. The proposed approach was tested in the IEEE 33-bus system in order to simultaneously minimize active power losses and enhance reliability while taking into account a set of operational and topological constraints. To calculate power losses, the Backward/Forward algorithm was applied. Moreover, the union-find with path compression approach was used to keep radiality of each network configuration. To evaluate the performance of MOALO, it was benchmarked against the weighted-sum method (using Genetic Algorithm (GA)), Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO) and multiobjective Grey Wolf Optimizer (MOGWO). The research findings revealed that the proposed MOALO algorithm effectively reduces total power losses by up to $\mathbf{3 1. 1 4 \%}$ and the total ENS index by $33.35 \%$, while also providing a wellbalanced compromise solution with power losses around 141.92 kW and improved reliability with a total ENS index of approximately $5037 \mathrm{kWh} /$ year.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207