On the Performance of Distributed and Cloud-Based Demand Response in Smart Grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By locally solving an optimization problem and broadcasting an update message over the underlying communication infrastructure, demand response program based on the distributed optimization model encourage all users to participate in the program. However, some challenging issues present themselves, such as the existence of an ideal communication network, especially, when utilizing wireless communication, and the effects of communication channel properties, like the bit error rate, on the overall performance of the demand response program. To address the issues, this paper first defines a cloud-based demand response (CDR) model, which is implemented as a two-tier cloud computing platform. Then a communication model is proposed to evaluate the communication performance of both the CDR and distributed demand response models. This paper shows that when users are finely clustered, the channel bit error rate is high and the user datagram protocol (UDP) is leveraged to broadcast the update messages, making the optimal solution unachievable. Contradictory to UDP, the transmission control protocol will be caught up with a higher bandwidth and increase the delay in the convergence time. Finally, this paper presents a cost-effectiveness analysis which confirms that achieving higher demand response performance incurs a higher communication cost.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".