MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106066138 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2020.3037066

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Demand Response in Distribution Networks

2020· article· en· W3106066138 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahab Bahrami, Yu Christine Chen, Vincent W. S. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDemand responseReinforcement learningComputer scienceScalabilityScheduling (production processes)Load managementElectricityMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Load aggregators can use demand response programs to motivate residential users toward reducing electricity demand during peak time periods. This article proposes a demand response algorithm for residential users, while accounting for uncertainties in the load demand and electricity price, users' privacy concerns, and power flow constraints imposed by the distribution network. To address the uncertainty issues, we develop a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm using an actor-critic method. We apply federated learning to enable users to determine the neural network parameters in a decentralized fashion without sharing private information (e.g., load demand, users' potential discomfort due to load scheduling). To tackle the nonconvex power flow constraints, we apply convex relaxation and transform the problem of updating the neural network parameters into a sequence of semidefinite programs (SDPs). Simulations on an IEEE 33-bus test feeder with 32 households show that the proposed demand response algorithm can reduce the peak load by 33% and the expected cost of each user by 13%. Also, we demonstrate the scalability of the proposed algorithm in 330-bus and 1650-bus feeders with real-time pricing scheme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations129
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207