Optimal Control of Energy Storage in a Microgrid by Minimizing Conditional Value-at-Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents two methods for online rolling horizon optimal control of an energy storage unit in a grid-connected microgrid, subject to uncertainty in demand and electricity pricing. The proposed methods are based on the concept of rolling horizon control, where battery charge/discharge activities are determined by repeatedly solving a linear optimization problem over a moving control window. The predicted values of the microgrid net electricity demand and electricity prices over the control horizon are assumed to be uncertain. The first formulation of the control is based on the scenario-based stochastic conditional value at risk (CVaR) optimization, where the cost function includes electricity usage cost, battery operation costs, and grid signal smoothing objectives. Multivariate Gaussian distribution is used to model the variations of electricity prices and net demand power around their predicted nominal values. The second formulation of the control reduces the computations by taking a worst-case CVaR stochastic optimization approach. In this case, the uncertainty in demand is still stochastic but the problem constraints are made robust with respect to price variations in a range. Simulation results under different scenarios are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".