Hierarchical transactive home energy management system groups coordination through multi-level consensus sharing-based distributed ADMM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordinating residential building groups requires a hierarchical structure in which aggregate objectives and coupled constraints are incorporated into decision-making processes at different layers of the electric distribution system. Failure to handle these matters can raise issues, such as rebound peaks and contingencies. This paper proposes a Hierarchical Transactive Coordination Mechanism (HTCM) capable of dealing with residential consumers’ objectives/constraints and local and grid coordinators’ shared objectives/coupled constraints under a bottom-up strategy. Particularly, the proposed multi-level framework distributes local and grid coordinators’ shared objectives among consumers to flatten the aggregate consumption profile and minimize the aggregate energy cost at each level. The suggested scheme is enhanced by developing two additional operations. A gain-sharing technique is designed to fairly divide the total gain acquired by the grid coordinator across the hierarchy from higher to lower levels, successively. Besides, a coupled constraint-sharing method is devised to link these levels and fulfill the coupled constraints by revising consumers’ decisions. The proposed approach is applied to a society of buildings comprising Home Energy Management System (HEMS) groups with demand response-enabled electric Baseboard Heaters (BHs), and its effectiveness is investigated through different case studies. The results demonstrate that the recommended HTCM is able to improve the society’s aggregate power profile load factor by 89%, from 0.45 up to 0.85, and decreases its overall electricity cost by 6.2%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".