pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19085 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

PROMETHEE-based Modeling of Endogenous Behavioral Uncertainty of EV Owners

Dipayan Sarkar , Qifeng Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords electric vehiclesendogenous uncertaintyPROMETHEEdistributionally robust chance constraintspower distribution systemsbehavioral uncertaintyoptimal operation
0
0 comments X

The pith

EV charging demand uncertainty is modeled as endogenous to operator price decisions using the PROMETHEE method in a distributionally robust optimization framework.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Electric vehicle owners decide when and how much to charge based on electricity prices and their own preferences, creating uncertainty that depends on the system operator's decisions. This paper incorporates that decision-dependent uncertainty into the optimal operation of power distribution systems by building an ambiguity set with the PROMETHEE method. The resulting distributionally robust chance-constrained model is solved for IEEE test systems. It outperforms both deterministic models and standard robust approaches in managing resilience and security.

Core claim

The paper establishes that EV charging demands are jointly determined by EV owners' behavior and DSO decisions, and proposes to capture this endogenous uncertainty in the ambiguity set of a DRCC problem using PROMETHEE to reflect human factors, resulting in improved PDS operation as shown in case studies.

What carries the argument

PROMETHEE, used to construct the ambiguity set that represents the endogenous, decision-dependent behavioral uncertainty of EV owners.

If this is right

  • The proposed method achieves superior performance compared to deterministic and conventional DRCC approaches on IEEE test systems.
  • It enhances resilience and security in PDS operations by properly accounting for the human factor in EV owners' charging behavior.
  • The endogenous modeling avoids the limitations of treating uncertainty as exogenous or assuming EV owners are perfect decision-makers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • System operators could design price signals that steer EV behavior toward grid stability more effectively than price-agnostic models allow.
  • The framework could extend to other price-responsive loads such as smart appliances or heat pumps where user decisions create similar decision-dependent uncertainty.
  • Dynamic updating of the ambiguity set based on real-time price proposals would be needed for online implementation.
  • Direct comparison with observed EV usage data under controlled price variations would provide a concrete test of whether the PROMETHEE ambiguity sets match reality.

Load-bearing premise

That the PROMETHEE method, when used to construct the ambiguity set, accurately represents the endogenous decision-dependent behavioral uncertainty of EV owners without requiring external validation data or real behavioral observations.

What would settle it

If actual EV charging data under different price signals shows distributions that fall outside the PROMETHEE-generated ambiguity sets or if the resulting operation schedules fail to outperform deterministic and conventional DRCC schedules in practice, the modeling approach would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19085 by Dipayan Sarkar, Qifeng Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Constraint violation percentages for different models of (a) 33 node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The electric vehicle (EV) charging demands (CD) are jointly determined by the EV owners' behavior (i.e., human factor) and the electricity prices (i.e., decisions of distribution system operators (DSO)). However, most existing studies either neglect the decision-dependent nature of EVCD uncertainty or idealistically treat EV owners as perfect decision-makers. This paper formulates the optimal operation of power distribution systems (PDS) as a distributionally robust chance-constrained (DRCC) problem considering EVCDs as endogenous uncertainty (i.e., decision-dependent uncertainty). The Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) is introduced to capture the human factor of EV owners in the proposed ambiguity set. Case studies on IEEE test systems demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance compared to deterministic and conventional DRCC approaches, thereby enhancing resilience and security in PDS operations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper formulates optimal power distribution system (PDS) operation as a distributionally robust chance-constrained (DRCC) problem that treats EV charging demand uncertainty as endogenous and decision-dependent on electricity prices. It incorporates the human factor via a PROMETHEE-based ambiguity set and reports that case studies on IEEE test systems show superior resilience and security metrics relative to deterministic and standard DRCC baselines.

Significance. If the central modeling choice holds, the work offers a structured way to embed behavioral responses into ambiguity sets for DRCC problems in PDS, which could improve operational robustness when EV adoption grows. The approach is novel in linking multi-criteria outranking to endogenous uncertainty, though its practical value hinges on whether the resulting bounds reflect observable owner behavior rather than modeling artifacts.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (PROMETHEE-based Ambiguity Set): The ambiguity set is constructed solely from the PROMETHEE outranking procedure using free parameters (preference thresholds and weights); no calibration procedure, comparison to observed EV owner response data, or external validation is provided. This choice is load-bearing for the claim that the set faithfully represents endogenous behavioral uncertainty.
  2. [§5] §5 (Case Studies): The reported superiority on IEEE test systems is presented without accompanying details on the specific PROMETHEE parameter values used, the exact construction of the ambiguity set for each scenario, or sensitivity analysis to those parameters. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether performance gains are independent of the modeling choice or arise from fitting the set to the same test cases.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of 'superior performance' is stated without any quantitative metrics, improvement percentages, or specific resilience/security indicators, which reduces clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, proposing revisions to enhance clarity and transparency while maintaining the paper's core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (PROMETHEE-based Ambiguity Set): The ambiguity set is constructed solely from the PROMETHEE outranking procedure using free parameters (preference thresholds and weights); no calibration procedure, comparison to observed EV owner response data, or external validation is provided. This choice is load-bearing for the claim that the set faithfully represents endogenous behavioral uncertainty.

    Authors: We agree that the PROMETHEE parameters function as modeling choices rather than data-driven estimates. The manuscript presents the framework as a structured method to embed multi-criteria behavioral preferences into the ambiguity set, drawing on established PROMETHEE literature for parameter selection. In the revision we will add an explicit subsection on parameter selection rationale and their behavioral interpretation for EV owners. We will also insert a limitations paragraph acknowledging the absence of direct calibration against observed EV response datasets and outlining this as an avenue for future empirical work. This addresses the load-bearing concern without altering the theoretical contribution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Case Studies): The reported superiority on IEEE test systems is presented without accompanying details on the specific PROMETHEE parameter values used, the exact construction of the ambiguity set for each scenario, or sensitivity analysis to those parameters. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether performance gains are independent of the modeling choice or arise from fitting the set to the same test cases.

    Authors: We accept that additional implementation details are required for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will report the exact PROMETHEE preference thresholds, weights, and indifference/preference thresholds applied in each IEEE test case. We will also include a step-by-step description of ambiguity-set construction and new sensitivity-analysis results that vary the key parameters while holding other elements fixed. These additions will allow readers to evaluate whether the reported resilience and security improvements are robust to the modeling choices. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct comparison or calibration against observed EV owner response data, which was not part of the original study and cannot be supplied without new empirical collection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: PROMETHEE ambiguity set is an independent modeling choice evaluated on benchmark systems

full rationale

The derivation formulates a DRCC problem incorporating endogenous EV charging uncertainty, constructs the ambiguity set via the PROMETHEE outranking procedure to encode human behavioral factors, and evaluates the resulting optimization on standard IEEE test systems against deterministic and conventional DRCC baselines. No equation or step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no parameters are fitted to the evaluation cases and then relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation chain supplies the load-bearing justification for the central performance claim. The superiority result is therefore an independent comparison outcome rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that PROMETHEE can faithfully encode EV owner preferences as an ambiguity set for endogenous uncertainty; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly listed in the abstract but the method necessarily introduces tunable ranking criteria.

free parameters (1)
  • PROMETHEE preference thresholds and weights
    Criteria weights and indifference/preference thresholds for owner decision factors must be selected or calibrated to define the ambiguity set.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EV owner charging decisions can be represented as a multi-criteria preference ranking problem whose output defines a valid ambiguity set for decision-dependent uncertainty
    Invoked to justify replacing conventional uncertainty sets with PROMETHEE-derived ones.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5448 in / 1345 out tokens · 38382 ms · 2026-05-10T02:28:16.779492+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uncertainty-aware three-phase optimal power flow based on data- driven convexification,

    Q. Li, “Uncertainty-aware three-phase optimal power flow based on data- driven convexification,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1645–1648, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Uncertainty handling techniques in power systems: A critical review,

    V . Singh, T. Moger, and D. Jena, “Uncertainty handling techniques in power systems: A critical review,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 203, p. 107633, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Global ev outlook 2025,

    IEA, “Global ev outlook 2025,”Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Stochastic economic dispatch con- sidering demand response and endogenous uncertainty,

    N. Bayat, Q. Li, and J.-H. Park, “Stochastic economic dispatch con- sidering demand response and endogenous uncertainty,” in2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Robust scheduling of virtual power plant under exogenous and endogenous uncertainties,

    Y . Zhang, F. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Su, W. Wang, and S. Feng, “Robust scheduling of virtual power plant under exogenous and endogenous uncertainties,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1311–1325, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    V2g for frequency regulation service: A stackelberg game approach considering endogenous uncertainties,

    J. Wang, Z. Wang, B. Yang, F. Liu, W. Wei, and X. Guan, “V2g for frequency regulation service: A stackelberg game approach considering endogenous uncertainties,”IEEE Transactions on Transportation Elec- trification, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 463–475, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Robust scheduling of fast-charging evs with exogenous and endogenous un- certainties for urban power congestion relief,

    Z. Wang, H. Hu, X. Pan, Z. Zhang, L. Huang, and T. Yan, “Robust scheduling of fast-charging evs with exogenous and endogenous un- certainties for urban power congestion relief,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 4530–4540, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Optimal ev charging decisions considering charg- ing rate characteristics and congestion effects,

    L. Yi and E. Wei, “Optimal ev charging decisions considering charg- ing rate characteristics and congestion effects,”IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 5045–5057, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    An enhanced sd-gs-al algorithm for coordinating the optimal power and traffic flows with evs,

    S. Sharma, Q. Li, and W. Wei, “An enhanced sd-gs-al algorithm for coordinating the optimal power and traffic flows with evs,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 3904–3918, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Day-ahead distribution- ally robust optimization-based scheduling for distribution systems with electric vehicles,

    X. Shi, Y . Xu, Q. Guo, H. Sun, and X. Zhang, “Day-ahead distribution- ally robust optimization-based scheduling for distribution systems with electric vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 2837–2850, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Integration of renewable energy sources and electric vehicles in v2g network with adjustable robust optimization,

    R. Shi, S. Li, P. Zhang, and K. Y . Lee, “Integration of renewable energy sources and electric vehicles in v2g network with adjustable robust optimization,”Renewable Energy, vol. 153, pp. 1067–1080, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty

    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty.”science, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124–1131, 1974

    work page 1974

  13. [13]

    How to select and how to rank projects: The promethee method,

    J.-P. Brans, P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal, “How to select and how to rank projects: The promethee method,”European journal of operational research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228–238, 1986

    work page 1986

  14. [14]

    Promethee: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications,

    M. Behzadian, R. B. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi, and M. Aghdasi, “Promethee: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications,”European journal of Operational research, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 198–215, 2010

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    A decision support system for the selec- tion of insulating material in energy retrofit of industrial buildings: a new robust ordinal regression approach,

    F. Lolli, E. Balugani, M. A. Butturi, A. M. Coruzzolo, A. Ishizaka, S. Marinelli, and V . Romano, “A decision support system for the selec- tion of insulating material in energy retrofit of industrial buildings: a new robust ordinal regression approach,”IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 71, pp. 2077–2088, 2022

    work page 2077

  16. [16]

    Ambiguous chance-constrained binary programs under mean-covariance information,

    Y . Zhang, R. Jiang, and S. Shen, “Ambiguous chance-constrained binary programs under mean-covariance information,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 2922–2944, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Distributionally robust optimization under mo- ment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems,

    E. Delage and Y . Ye, “Distributionally robust optimization under mo- ment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems,”Operations research, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 595–612, 2010

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Convex optimization for des planning and operation in radial distribution systems with high penetration of photovoltaic resources,

    Q. Li, R. Ayyanar, and V . Vittal, “Convex optimization for des planning and operation in radial distribution systems with high penetration of photovoltaic resources,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 985–995, 2016

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Data-driven distributionally robust optimal power flow for distribution systems,

    R. Mieth and Y . Dvorkin, “Data-driven distributionally robust optimal power flow for distribution systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 363–368, 2018

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Chance constraints for improving the security of ac optimal power flow,

    M. Lubin, Y . Dvorkin, and L. Roald, “Chance constraints for improving the security of ac optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1908–1917, 2019

    work page 1908