Enhancing Battery Storage Energy Arbitrage With Deep Reinforcement Learning and Time-Series Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Energy arbitrage is one of the most profitable sources of income for battery operators, generating revenues by buying and selling electricity at different prices. Forecasting these revenues is challenging due to the inherent uncertainty of electricity prices. Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) emerged in recent years as a promising tool, able to cope with uncertainty by training on large quantities of historical data. However, without access to future electricity prices, DRL agents can only react to the currently observed price and not learn to plan battery dispatch. Therefore, in this study, we combine DRL with time-series forecasting methods from deep learning to enhance the performance on energy arbitrage. We conduct a case study using price data from Alberta, Canada that is characterized by irregular price spikes and highly non-stationary. This data is challenging to forecast even when state-of-the-art deep learning models consisting of convolutional layers, recurrent layers, and attention modules are deployed. Our results show that energy arbitrage with DRL-enabled battery control still significantly benefits from these imperfect predictions, but only if predictors for several horizons are combined. Grouping multiple predictions for the next 24-hour window, accumulated rewards increased by 60% for deep Q-networks (DQN) compared to the experiments without forecasts. We hypothesize that multiple predictors, despite their imperfections, convey useful information regarding the future development of electricity prices through a “majority vote” principle, enabling the DRL agent to learn more profitable control policies.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".