MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk-averse forward contract for electric vehicle frequency regulation service

2015· article· en· W2308256145 on OpenAlexaffabout
Enxin Yao, Vincent W. S. Wong, Robert Schober

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNews aggregatorForward contractCVARComputer scienceOperations researchRevenueService (business)Mathematical optimizationExpected shortfallRisk managementBusinessEngineeringMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicles (EVs) can be coordinated by an aggregator to participate in the electricity day-ahead market (DAM) and provide frequency regulation service. In the DAM, a short-term forward contract is made between the aggregator and an independent system operator (ISO). The contract specifies the contract size, which is the amount of regulation capacity provided by the aggregator for each hour of the next day. However, since the capacity of the aggregator is provided by many EVs instead of a single source, the challenge is how to efficiently aggregate the small and uncertain individual capacity and determine the optimal size of the forward contract. We consider two cases for the contract between the aggregator and the ISO. In the first case, the aggregator needs to ensure that the capacity provided by the EVs on the next day will meet the amount specified in the contract. In contrast, in the second case, the ISO allows an update of the contract size. A stochastic program is formulated to determine the contract size for both cases. Our problem formulation incorporates risk management using the conditional value at risk (CVaR). Chance constraints are embedded when the contract size is fixed. We tackle the chance constraints using the Markov inequality and propose an efficient algorithm. The EV charging data collected in the province of British Columbia, Canada, is used to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm improves the revenue of the aggregator compared to an existing algorithm from the literature.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207