An Efficient Method for Quantifying the Aggregate Flexibility of Plug-In Electric Vehicle Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) are widely recognized as being highly flexible electric loads that can be pooled and controlled via aggregators to provide low-cost energy and ancillary services to wholesale electricity markets. To participate in these markets, an aggregator must encode the aggregate flexibility of the population of EVs under their command as a single polytope that is compliant with existing market rules. To this end, we investigate the problem of characterizing the aggregate flexibility set of a heterogeneous population of EVs whose individual flexibility sets are given as convex polytopes in half-space representation. As the exact computation of the aggregate flexibility set—the Minkowski sum of the individual flexibility sets—is known to be intractable, we study the problem of computing maximum-volume inner approximations to the aggregate flexibility set by optimizing over affine transformations of a given convex polytope in half-space representation. We show how to conservatively approximate these set containment problems as linear programs that scale polynomially with the number and dimension of the individual flexibility sets. The inner approximation methods provided in this paper generalize and improve upon existing methods from the literature. We illustrate the improvement in approximation accuracy and performance achievable by our methods with 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".