Reputation-Based Fair Power Allocation to Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the Smart Grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a reputation-based framework for allocating power to plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) in the smart grid. In this framework, the available capacity of the distribution network measured by distribution-level phasor measurement units is divided in a proportionally fair manner among connected EVs, considering their demands and self-declared deadlines. To encourage users to estimate their deadlines more precisely and conservatively, a weight is assigned to a each deadline based on the user's reputation, which comprises two kinds of evidence: deadlines declared before and after the actual departure times in the recent past. Assuming reliable communication between sensors installed in the network and charging stations, we design a decentralized algorithm which allows the users to independently compute their fair share based on signals received from upstream sensors without sharing their private information, e.g., their deadline, with a central scheduler. We prove that this algorithm achieves quadratic convergence under specific conditions and evaluate it empirically on a test distribution network by comparing it with a centralized algorithm which solves the same optimization problem, a decentralized gradient-projection algorithm with linear convergence, and earliest-deadline-first and least-laxity-first scheduling policies. Our results corroborate that the proposed algorithm can track the available capacity of the network despite changes in the demands of homes and other inelastic loads, improves a fairness metric, and increases the overall allocation to users who have a better reputation.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".