MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883477413 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2018.2856283

Eliciting Multi-Dimensional Flexibilities From Electric Vehicles: A Mechanism Design Approach

2018· article· en· W2883477413 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Sun, Xiaoqi Tan, Danny H. K. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Dual (grammatical number)Mechanism designImplementationMechanism (biology)Mathematical optimizationElectric power systemPower (physics)EconomicsMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicles (EVs) have been well recognized as a deferrable load with the flexibility to shift their energy demands over time. Although this one-dimensional flexibility has been extensively investigated both by research and industrial implementations, the expanding energy demand and the associated uncertainties still make the integration of a large population of EVs into power system reliably and economically greatly challenging. In this paper, we design an auction scheme via mechanism design to elicit two additional flexibilities from EVs, namely energy flexibility and deadline flexibility. An offline mechanism is firstly designed as a benchmark based on the famous Vickrey-Clark-Groves mechanism. Then based on the primal-dual approach, we propose an online auction, in which all bids are truthful, the loss of social welfare is bounded by competitive ratio, and the mechanism can be implemented in polynomial time. By the numerical results, we quantitatively show that both the power system operators and individual EVs can benefit from the integration of the multi-dimensional flexibilities through our proposed mechanisms.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207