MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301937685 · doi:10.3934/energy.2016.2.379

Game-theoretic control of PHEV charging with power flow analysis

2016· article· en· W2301937685 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan Liu, Ruilong Deng, Hao Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS energy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower flowControl (management)Power (physics)Automotive engineeringFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceElectrical engineeringControl theory (sociology)EngineeringPhysicsElectric power systemMechanicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to an ever-increasing market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), the charging demand is expected to become a main determinant of the load in future distribution systems. In this paper, we investigate the problem of controlling in-home charging of PHEVs to accomplish peak load shifting while maximizing the revenue of the distribution service provider (DSP) and PHEV owners. A leader-follower game model is proposed to characterize the preference and revenue expectation of PHEV owners and DSP, respectively. The follower (PHEV owner) decides when to start charging based on the pricing schedule provided by the leader (DSP). The DSP can incentivize the charging of PHEV owners to avoid system peak load. The costs associated with power distribution, line loss, and voltage regulation are incorporated in the game model via power flow analysis. Based on a linear approximation of the power flow equations, the solution of sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium (SPNE) is obtained. A case study is performed based on the IEEE 13-bus test feeder and realistic PHEV charging statistics, and the results demonstrate that our proposed PHEV charging control scheme can significantly improve the power quality in distribution systems by reducing the peak load and voltage fluctuations.

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 score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 head0.001
GPT teacher head0.146
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIMS energySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207