Demand Management for Optimized Energy Usage and Consumer Comfort Using Sequential Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Energy-efficiency of demand management technologies and customer's experience have emerged as important issues as consumers began to heavily adopt these technologies. In this context, where the electrical load imposed on the smart grid by residential users needs to be optimized, it can be better managed when customer's comfort parameters are used, such as thermal comfort and preferred appliance usage time interval. In this paper a multi-layer architecture is proposed that uses a multi-objective optimization model at the energy consumption level to take consumer comfort and experience into consideration. The paper shows how our proposed Clustered Sequential Management (CSM) approach could improve consumer comfort via appliance use scheduling. To quantify thermal comfort, we use thermodynamic solutions for a Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioner (HVAC) system and then apply our scheduling model to find the best time slot for such thermal loads, linking consumer experience to power consumption. In addition to thermal loads, we also include non-thermal loads in the cost minimization and the enhanced consumer experience. In this hierarchal algorithm, we classified appliances by their load profile including degrees of freedom for consumer appliance prioritization. Finally, we scheduled consumption within a Time of Use (ToU) pricing model. In this model, we used Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) and Linear Programming (LP) optimization for different categories with different constraints for various loads. We eliminate the customer's inconvenience on thermal load considering ASHRAE standard, increase the satisfaction on EV optimal chagrining constrained by minimum cost and achieve the preferred usage time for the non-interruptible deferrable loads. The results show that our model is typically able to achieve cost minimization almost equal to 13% and Peak-to-Average Ratios (PAR) reduction with almost 45%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".