Enhancing Hybrid Microgrid Dynamics Using an Agent‐Based Reinforcement Learning (RL) Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Hybrid microgrids, integrating renewable, and conventional energy sources are critical for sustainable and resilient power systems. Their dynamic performance is affected by uncertainties in load demand, generation variability, and control strategies. This paper investigates the performance of a grid‐connected inverter in a hybrid microgrid and compares different controllers, including Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Adaptive Neuro‐Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), and a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent. The proposed system integrates solar panels and wind turbines with traditional sources such as batteries and fuel cell stacks, with maximum power extraction achieved using a hill‐climb MPPT technique. Four converters regulate the microgrid DC link voltage, and the RL agent's performance is evaluated under both static and dynamic conditions. Simulation results, validated in MATLAB/Simulink, demonstrate that the RL agent outperforms ANN and ANFIS controllers in terms of stability, power quality, and dynamic response.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".