Optimal scheduling of DG and EV parking lots simultaneously with demand response based on self‐adjusted PSO and K‐means clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, the proliferation of distributed generation (DG) has been intensively increased in distribution systems worldwide. In distributed systems, DGs and utility‐owned electric vehicle (EV) to grid aggregators have to be efficiently scaled for cost‐effective network operation. Accordingly, with the penetration of power systems, demand response (DR) is considered an advanced step towards a smart grid. To cope with these advancements, this study aims to develop an innovative solution for the day‐ahead sizing approach of energy storage systems of EVs parking lots and DGs in smart distribution systems complying with DR and minimizing the pertinent costs. The unique feature of the proposed approach is to allow interactive customers to participate effectively in power systems. To accurately solve this optimization model, two probabilistic self‐adjusted modified particle swarm optimization (SAPSO) algorithms are developed and compared for minimizing the total operational costs addressing all constraints of the distribution system, DG units, and energy storage systems of EV parking lots. The K‐means clustering and the Naive Bayes approach are utilized to determine the EVs that are ready to participate efficiently in the DR program. The obtained results on the IEEE‐24 reliability test system are compared to the genetic algorithm and the conventional PSO to verify the effectiveness of the developed algorithms. The results show that the first SAPSO algorithm outperforms the algorithms in terms of minimizing the total running costs. The finding demonstrates that the proposed near‐optimal day‐ahead scheduling approach of DG units and EV energy storage systems in a simultaneous manner can effectively minimize the total operational costs subjected to generation constraints complying with DR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".