Machine Learning and Game-Theoretic Model for Advanced Wind Energy Management Protocol (AWEMP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To meet the target of carbon neutrality by the year 2050 and decrease the dependence on fossil fuels, renewable energy sources (RESs), specifically wind power, and Electric Vehicles (EVs) have to be massively deployed. Nevertheless, the integration of a large amount of wind power, with an intermittent nature, into the grid and the variability of the load on the demand side require an efficient and reliable energy management system (EMS) for operation, scheduling, maintenance and energy trading in the modern power system. This article proposes a new Energy Management Protocol (EMP) based on the combination of Machine Learning (ML) and Game-Theoretic (GT) algorithms to manage the operation of the charging/discharging of EVs from an energy storage system (ESS) via EV supply equipment (EVSE) when the main source of energy is wind power. The ESS can be linked to the grid to overcome downtimes of wind power production. Case study results of wind power forecasting using an ML algorithm and 10 min wind measurements, combined with a GT optimization model, showed good performance in the forecasting and management of power dispatching between EVs to ensure the efficient and accurate operation of the power system.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".