MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An autonomous demand response program in smart grid with foresighted users

2015· article· en· W2308835159 on OpenAlexaff
Shahab Bahrami, Vincent W. S. Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemand responseComputer scienceInefficiencyNash equilibriumSmart gridPartition (number theory)GridSubgame perfect equilibriumBest responseLoad managementOn demandResponse timeGame theoryMicroeconomicsEconomicsEngineeringElectricity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In smart grid, demand response is a viable approach to motivate users towards shifting the demand during the peak load periods. Each user can also benefit by reducing its total cost. In most of the existing studies, the demand response program is modeled as a one-shot game among myopic users, who aim to minimize their cost in one period of time. In this paper, we show that the Nash equilibrium (NE) in the one-shot game can be inefficient in reducing the peak load demand and the users' cost. We address the inefficiency of the NE by modeling the demand response program as a repeated game. A grim-trigger strategy is proposed to determine the subgame perfect equilibrium. To address the issue of fairness, we partition the set of users into groups. In each time period, only one group of users are required to participate in the demand response program. Simulation results show that the proposed demand response repeated game can benefit both the users, by reducing their long-term cost, and the utility company, by reducing the peak-to-average ratio in the aggregate load demand.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207