A Multi-Battery Model for the Aggregate Flexibility of Heterogeneous Electric Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of electric vehicles (EVs) in the transportation sector will introduce a large number of highly flexible electric loads that EV aggregators can pool and control to provide energy and ancillary services to the wholesale electricity market. To integrate large populations of EVs into electricity market operations, aggregators must express the aggregate flexibility of the EVs under their control in the form of a small number of energy storage (battery) resources that accurately capture the supply/demand capabilities of the individual EVs as a collective. To this end, we propose a novel multi-battery flexibility model defined as a linear combination of a small number of base sets (termed batteries) that reflect the differing geometric shapes of the individual EV flexibility sets, and suggest a clustering approach to identify these base sets. We study the problem of computing a multi-battery flexibility set that has minimum Hausdorff distance to the aggregate flexibility set, subject to the constraint that the multi-battery flexibility set be a subset of the aggregate flexibility set. We show how to conservatively approximate this problem with a tractable convex program, and illustrate the performance achievable by our method with several numerical experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".