MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An approximate dynamic programming approach for coordinated charging control at vehicle-to-grid aggregator

2011· article· en· W2047869659 on OpenAlexaff
XU Jin-biao, Vincent W. S. Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNews aggregatorVehicle-to-gridComputer scienceGridDynamic programmingSmart gridElectric power systemAutomotive engineeringElectric vehiclePower (physics)EngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A vehicle-to-grid (V2G) aggregator is an agent between the power grid and plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles (PHEVs). This paper studies the coordinated charging control of a V2G aggregator, which aims at minimizing the charging cost and reducing the power losses incurred by the fluctuating load. On one hand, a lower cost of charging gives the owners of PHEVs an incentive to cooperate. On the other hand, with an increasing popularity of PHEVs, the impact on the power grid such as power losses should be of concern to the aggregator. As an inherent property of a V2G aggregator, we enable bidirectional electric power flows between PHEVs and the power grid. Given the planned schedules of all the vehicles that are managed by an aggregator, we formulate the coordinated charging control as a dynamic programming problem. Due to the curse of dimensionality, we apply an approximate dynamic programming approach, which reduces the dimensionality of both state space and control space, to obtain the control sequences. We conduct simulations given the 24-hour schedules of 100 vehicles. Simulation results show that coordinated charging control can reduce both the total cost of charging and power losses significantly, compared with the scheme where each vehicle starts charging as soon as it is connected to the grid.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207