A Dynamical Systems Approach to Modeling and Analysis of Transactive Energy Coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under transactive (market-based) coordination, a population of distributed energy resources (DERs), such as thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs) and storage devices, bid into an energy market. Consequently, a certain level of demand will be cleared based on the operating conditions of the grid. This paper analyzes the influence of various factors, such as price signals, feeder limits, and user-defined bid functions and preferences, on the aggregate energy usage of DERs. We identify cases that can lead to load synchronization, undesirable power oscillations and highly volatile prices. To address these issues, the paper develops an aggregate model of DERs under transactive coordination. A set of Markov transition equations have been developed over discrete ranges (referred to as “bins”) of price levels and their associated DER operating states. A detailed investigation of the performance of this aggregate model is presented. With reformulation of the transition equations, the bin model has been incorporated into a model predictive control setting using both mixed integer programming and quadratic programming. A case study shows that a population of TCLs can be managed economically while avoiding congestion in a distribution grid. Simulations also demonstrate that power oscillations arising from synchronization of TCLs can be effectively avoided.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".