Engineering topics

Glatt, Ruben

Publications and source records attributed to Glatt, Ruben.

4 records

DOE OSTI2024

Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap (Second Edition)

The first ICEF Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap was released in December 2023. Since that time, attention to artificial intelligence (AI) has continued to grow at a rapid pace. Tens of billions of dollars have poured into AI projects, policymakers around the world have considered new AI policies, and OpenAI reports that each month more than 200 million people now use ChatGPT. Signs of a changing climate continue to grow as well. Based on global average temperatures, July 22, 2024 was the warmest day ever recorded; 2023 was the warmest year ever recorded; and the 10 warmest years on record are the past 10 years. Yet global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb. Can AI help cut emissions of greenhouse gases? This Roadmap explores that question. In this second edition of the Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap, a team of 25 co-authors builds on last year’s roadmap—comprehensively updating all old chapters, adding six new chapters and offering 5–10 specific, actionable recommendations in each chapter. Our goal is to provide a useful resource for experts and non-experts alike. In Part I of this Roadmap, we provide brief introductions to both AI and climate change. In Part II, we explore eight sectors in which AI is helping respond to climate change and could do much more. In Part III, we explore crosscutting issues. We close with findings and recommendations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Safety in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities for the U.S. National Labs and Beyond

This report discusses the importance of the critical and underexplored topic of artificial intelligence (AI) safety, as highlighted during the “Strategy Alignment on AI Safety” workshop convened at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in April 2024. Through a summary of keynote talks, panel discussions, and breakout sessions, world-leading AI safety experts from academic, industry, national labs, and government agencies clearly agree on the need for and importance of large-scale investments for research and capabilities in AI safety. With the field innovating at unprecedented rates, there is increasing urgency to develop novel evaluation methodologies that allow full considerations of risks/threats of AI technologies in different domains. Quantitative metrics and effective methodologies that can evaluate and audit the “safeness” of how a given AI technology is trained, deployed, or regulated are, at best, nascent for certain scenarios or, more commonly, nonexistent. This maturation gap presents the possibility of serious threats to national security, and further inaction may have serious consequences. Additionally, the gap between the public’s and research community’s perceptions of AI risks/rewards is significant. While numerous voices from the AI community have expressed concern that the risks could be so high that future AI systems could inflict extinction-level damage to humanity if deployed incorrectly, the public largely is aware only of risk in low-impact scenarios. This discrepancy highlights the crucial need for researchers to articulate to governmental bodies what, why, and when various AI risks matter as part of motivating funding requests. Thus, the call to action for this community is to pursue AI safety as a “Big Science” project on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project. High risks and high payoffs are on the table, but safe AI is a fast-moving target, and large-scale investments are needed to guide development of this technology in a responsible way. We highlight the need for a multilayered solution combining the development of new methods and algorithmic approaches to mitigate threats with an active participation of the government(s) in setting high industry standards and regulations based on state-of-the-art technology. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories have served as leading institutions for scientific innovation in the U.S. for more than 70 years. Drawing on their expertise in the AI community and their history of safeguarding critical and sensitive information, and as we look to the future, national labs are the best choice for evaluating and safeguarding AI technologies.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

A Vehicle-to-Grid planning framework incorporating electric vehicle user equilibrium and distribution network flexibility enhancement

The rapid surge in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, coupled with advancements in charging technologies, emphasizes the critical necessity for expanding EV recharging infrastructure. Simultaneously, the Distribution Network (DN) encounters escalating challenges in meeting charging demand during peak traffic periods. Consequently, there is a mounting demand for the deployment of innovative Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technologies to augment the DN’s flexibility in power dispatch and alleviate travel costs for EV users. Hence, this paper proposes an EV-user-equilibrium-(UE)-constrained V2G planning framework that enhances flexibility in the DN. The framework aims to ascertain the optimal placement and capacity of EV charging stations (EVCSs) and V2G charging piles within the Transportation Network (TN). It takes into account the equilibrium condition stemming from competitive EV charging and routing behaviors alongside the optimal expansion of DN energy resources to accommodate the electricity supplied by the V2G piles. This study commences by analyzing EV drivers’ travel decisions, considering the influence of charging and V2G pile locations and sizes. Subsequently, we tackle the Traffic Assignment Problem with User Equilibrium (TAP-UE) model to characterize the steady-state traffic flow distribution of EVs. Following this, we formulate the optimization model for the Coordinated Power and Transportation Network (CPTN), which encompasses the optimal expansion of DN facilities and traffic flow regulation under UE conditions. To mitigate the computational complexity associated with the V2G planning model, we introduce a series of linearization methods to obtain a manageable Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) solution. Finally, to validate the efficacy of our proposed planning framework, we apply it to two test systems, including a real-world case study. Through these case studies, we explore the necessity and potential benefits of V2G technologies.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2024

SRBench++: Principled Benchmarking of Symbolic Regression With Domain-Expert Interpretation

Symbolic regression searches for analytic expressions that accurately describe studied phenomena. The main promise of this approach is that it may return an interpretable model that can be insightful to users, while maintaining high accuracy. The current standard for benchmarking these algorithms is SRBench, which evaluates methods on hundreds of datasets that are a mix of real-world and simulated processes spanning multiple domains. At present, the ability of SRBench to evaluate interpretability is limited to measuring the size of expressions on real-world data, and the exactness of model forms on synthetic data. In practice, model size is only one of many factors used by subject experts to determine how interpretable a model truly is. Furthermore, SRBench does not characterize algorithm performance on specific, challenging sub-tasks of regression such as feature selection and evasion of local minima. In this work, we propose and evaluate an approach to benchmarking SR algorithms that addresses these limitations of SRBench by 1) incorporating expert evaluations of interpretability on a domain-specific task, and 2) evaluating algorithms over distinct properties of data science tasks. We evaluate 12 modern symbolic regression algorithms on these benchmarks and present an in-depth analysis of the results, discuss current challenges of symbolic regression algorithms and highlight possible improvements for the benchmark itself.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗