Coordination of Smart Home Energy Management Systems in Neighborhood Areas: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High penetration of selfish Home Energy Management Systems (HEMSs) causes adverse effects such as rebound peaks, instabilities, and contingencies in different regions of distribution grid. To avoid these effects and relieve power grid stress, the concept of HEMSs coordination has been suggested. Particularly, this concept can be employed to fulfill important grid objectives in neighborhood areas such as flattening aggregated load profile, decreasing electricity bills, facilitating energy trading, diminishing reverse power flow, managing distributed energy resources, and modifying consumers' consumption/generation patterns. This paper reviews the latest investigations into coordinated HEMSs. The required steps to implement these systems, accounting for coordination topologies and techniques, are thoroughly explored. This exploration is mainly reported through classifying coordination approaches according to their utilization of decomposition algorithms. Furthermore, major features, advantages, and disadvantages of the methods are examined. Specifically, coordination process characteristics, its mathematical issues and essential prerequisites, as well as players concerns are analyzed. Subsequently, specific applications of coordination designs are discussed and categorized. Through a comprehensive investigation, this work elaborates significant remarks on critical gaps in existing studies toward a useful coordination structure for practical HEMSs implementations. Unlike other reviews, the present survey focuses on effective frameworks to determine future opportunities that make the concept of coordinated HEMSs feasible. Indeed, providing effective studies on HEMSs coordination concept is beneficial to both consumers and service providers since as reported, these systems can lead to 5% to 30% reduction in electricity bills.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".