A New and Fair Peer-to-Peer Energy Sharing Framework for Energy Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of energy buildings, advanced energy management is urgently demanded for a green society. In this paper, focusing on the coordinated energy management for a building community, we present a new and fair peer-to-peer energy sharing framework to realize an economic and sustainable building community. Specifically, in the building-centric peer-to-peer mode, buildings directly share their energy supplies/demands and offer the related payments within the community under the constraints of community energy and payment balance. We propose a non-cooperative energy sharing game for the selfish buildings, and we further show that a generalized Nash equilibrium of the game is independent of the energy sharing payments. Consequently, we firstly derive the energy sharing profiles by seeking the equilibrium. Since the buildings' energy sharing payments are mutually coupled and influenced, we propose a cost reduction ratio distribution model to determine the payments to ensure the fairness in the sense that buildings can get as large cost reductions and similar cost reduction ratios as possible. Simulation results show that all buildings can reduce their energy costs and have smoother and smaller net demand profiles on the main grid, thus making the proposed schemes and algorithms promising in real applications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".