pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.09657 · v3 · submitted 2025-04-13 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY· math.OC

Online Aging-Aware Energy Optimization for Vehicle-Home-Grid Integration

Francesco Popolizio , Torsten Wik , Chih Feng Lee , Changfu Zou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 20:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC
keywords electric vehiclesvehicle-to-homevehicle-to-gridenergy optimizationbattery agingLSTM forecastinghome energy managementeconomic analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

An online optimizer lets electric vehicles cut household energy bills by up to 3047 euros a year through bidirectional flows while tracking battery wear.

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

The paper develops an online optimization method to control energy transfers among an electric vehicle, a household, and the electricity grid. The method uses forecasts from a hybrid LSTM network to decide when to charge or discharge the vehicle battery for self-consumption and grid trading while tracking battery wear with a nonlinear aging model. Year-long simulations indicate that this bidirectional approach produces net savings reaching 3046.81 euros annually compared with unidirectional smart charging, accompanied by only a 1.96 percent rise in battery degradation. Savings of 425.48 euros remain even if no revenue comes from selling energy to the grid. The results hold across changes in battery size, load patterns, and price levels.

Core claim

The central discovery is that managing vehicle-home-grid energy flows with an online optimizer that incorporates real-time LSTM load predictions and a detailed cycle-plus-calendar battery degradation model yields annual economic benefits of up to EUR 3046.81 over smart unidirectional charging at the cost of a 1.96% increase in battery aging, and that vehicle-to-home operation alone delivers EUR 425.48 in yearly savings regardless of vehicle-to-grid market conditions.

What carries the argument

The online optimizer that uses hybrid LSTM household load forecasts and a nonlinear battery degradation model to adapt energy flows between the vehicle, home, and grid in real time.

If this is right

  • Bidirectional energy exchange produces consistent savings across different battery capacities, household loads, and electricity price ratios.
  • Vehicle-to-home self-consumption alone generates meaningful yearly savings of 425.48 euros when vehicle-to-grid trading brings no revenue.
  • The modest 1.96% increase in battery aging does not offset the economic gains from the optimized energy management.
  • Electric vehicles can serve as flexible storage assets that improve household energy economics and support grid integration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If forecast accuracy drops in practice, the actual savings could fall below the simulated values, pointing to the need for robust error handling in the optimizer.
  • Scaling the approach across many households could enable coordinated vehicle use that lowers individual costs beyond what single-home simulations show.
  • Adding solar generation forecasts to the load model would likely increase the self-consumption benefits already demonstrated.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid LSTM network produces sufficiently accurate real-time household load forecasts that the online optimizer can reliably exploit without large forecast errors eroding the claimed savings.

What would settle it

A real-world deployment where measured load forecast errors cause realized annual savings to fall below 1000 euros would falsify the reported economic advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.09657 by Changfu Zou, Chih Feng Lee, Francesco Popolizio, Torsten Wik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Vehicle-home-grid interaction of the proposed algorithm. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hybrid LSTM neural network architecture, where nn labels the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Concatenated household load for five apartments in the State [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Economic gain for varying battery capacities ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the economic impact of vehicle-home-grid integration through an online optimization algorithm that manages energy flows between an electric vehicle, a household, and the electrical grid. The algorithm exploits vehicle-to-home (V2H) for self-consumption and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) for energy trading, adapting in real-time via a hybrid long short-term memory (LSTM) network for household load prediction and a nonlinear battery degradation model including cycle and calendar aging. Simulations show annual economic benefits up to EUR 3046.81 compared to smart unidirectional charging, despite a modest 1.96% increase in battery aging. Even under unfavorable market conditions, with no V2G revenue, V2H alone provides yearly savings of EUR 425.48. Sensitivity analyses on battery capacity, household load, and price ratios confirm the consistent benefits of bidirectional energy exchange, highlighting the role of EVs as active energy nodes for sustainable management.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents an online optimization algorithm for vehicle-home-grid integration that uses a hybrid LSTM network to forecast household loads and a nonlinear battery degradation model (cycle plus calendar aging) to schedule V2H self-consumption and V2G trading. Year-long simulations report annual economic benefits reaching EUR 3046.81 versus smart unidirectional charging, with only a 1.96% rise in battery aging; V2H alone yields EUR 425.48 even with zero V2G revenue. Sensitivity studies vary battery capacity, load level, and price ratios.

Significance. If the simulation results prove robust to realistic forecast errors, the work supplies quantitative evidence that aging-aware bidirectional EV strategies can deliver substantial household savings while limiting degradation, supporting the view of EVs as active grid assets. The inclusion of both V2H and V2G scenarios plus sensitivity checks strengthens the practical relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation results] Simulation results section: The headline figures (EUR 3046.81 and EUR 425.48) are generated by feeding the nonlinear optimizer with LSTM forecasts; no ablation injects the observed forecast-error statistics (MAPE, bias, autocorrelation) back into the same optimizer and recomputes the economic outcome. Without this step the claimed savings remain conditional on an unverified premise about prediction quality.
  2. [Battery degradation model] Battery degradation model section: The cycle- and calendar-aging coefficients used inside the optimizer objective are not shown to originate from independent external data sets; because the reported savings are produced by an optimizer whose objective explicitly penalizes the same fitted degradation cost, the economic benefit is partly defined by the model parameters themselves.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and methods] The abstract and sensitivity analyses mention LSTM hyperparameters and training split but do not report the exact data partition or cross-validation procedure used to obtain the forecast accuracy that underpins the online decisions.
  2. [Simulation setup] Market price traces and battery model parameters are referenced but not tabulated; providing these values (or a clear citation to the exact external sources) would allow independent reproduction of the year-long runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable comments, which help improve the clarity and robustness of our work. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We plan to revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the simulation results and the battery degradation model.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation results] Simulation results section: The headline figures (EUR 3046.81 and EUR 425.48) are generated by feeding the nonlinear optimizer with LSTM forecasts; no ablation injects the observed forecast-error statistics (MAPE, bias, autocorrelation) back into the same optimizer and recomputes the economic outcome. Without this step the claimed savings remain conditional on an unverified premise about prediction quality.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on robustness. The LSTM forecaster is trained on historical household load data and evaluated on a separate test set, with forecast accuracy (MAPE and related statistics) reported in the manuscript. The online optimization then uses these forecasts to reflect realistic operating conditions. We agree that an explicit ablation—injecting the observed error statistics (including bias and autocorrelation) back into the optimizer and recomputing the economic outcomes—would provide stronger validation. We will add this analysis to the revised manuscript, including quantitative results on how forecast errors affect the reported savings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Battery degradation model] Battery degradation model section: The cycle- and calendar-aging coefficients used inside the optimizer objective are not shown to originate from independent external data sets; because the reported savings are produced by an optimizer whose objective explicitly penalizes the same fitted degradation cost, the economic benefit is partly defined by the model parameters themselves.

    Authors: The cycle- and calendar-aging model follows established functional forms from the battery literature. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly cite the independent external studies and data sets from which the coefficients are taken, making their origin transparent. On the second part of the comment, the economic comparison is between the bidirectional strategy (which internalizes degradation in its objective) and smart unidirectional charging (which does not). The sensitivity studies already vary price ratios and load levels, showing that benefits persist. We will nevertheless expand the discussion to address how the degradation cost weighting influences the absolute savings figures. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain.

full rationale

The paper presents an online optimization algorithm that incorporates LSTM-based load forecasts and a nonlinear battery degradation model (cycle and calendar aging) as part of the objective. Economic benefits are reported from simulations against baselines. No quoted equations or self-citations reduce the central claims (e.g., EUR 3046.81 savings) to fitted inputs by construction, self-defined parameters, or load-bearing self-citation chains. The degradation model and optimizer are treated as independent components with external assumptions; the derivation remains self-contained against the stated benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a hybrid LSTM predictor whose training details and accuracy bounds are not supplied, plus a nonlinear battery degradation model whose cycle and calendar coefficients are treated as known inputs. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • LSTM hyperparameters and training split
    Chosen to produce the load forecasts that drive the online optimizer; exact values not stated.
  • Battery degradation model coefficients
    Cycle and calendar aging parameters that directly affect the cost term inside the optimization.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear battery degradation model accurately captures real-world capacity loss under the simulated usage patterns.
    Invoked when the optimizer trades off revenue against the 1.96% aging increase.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1469 out tokens · 39335 ms · 2026-05-22T20:12:44.927065+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

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fair energy trading in blockchain-inspired smart grid: Technological barriers and future trends in the age of electric vehicles,

    S. Qazi, B. A. Khawaja, A. Alamri, and A. AlKassem, “Fair energy trading in blockchain-inspired smart grid: Technological barriers and future trends in the age of electric vehicles,” World Electric V ehicle Journal, vol. 15, no. 11, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Development of an optimal vehicle- to-grid aggregator for frequency regulation,

    S. Han, S. Han, and K. Sezaki, “Development of an optimal vehicle- to-grid aggregator for frequency regulation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: Calculating capacity and net revenue,

    W. Kempton and J. Tomi ´c, “Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: Calculating capacity and net revenue,” J. Power Sources , vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 268–279, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    State-of-the-art vehicle-to-everything mode of operation of electric vehicles and its future perspectives,

    S. Islam, A. Iqbal, M. Marzband, I. Khan, and A. M. Al-Wahedi, “State-of-the-art vehicle-to-everything mode of operation of electric vehicles and its future perspectives,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 166, p. 112574, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A review on communication standards and charging topologies of V2G and V2H operation strategies,

    S. Vadi, R. Bayindir, A. M. Colak, and E. Hossain, “A review on communication standards and charging topologies of V2G and V2H operation strategies,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 19, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Willingness to participate in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) in sweden, 2022—using an electric vehicle’s battery for more than transport,

    R. Khezri, D. Steen, and L. Anh Tuan, “Willingness to participate in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) in sweden, 2022—using an electric vehicle’s battery for more than transport,”Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 5, 2024

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Smart household operation considering bi-directional EV and ESS utilization by real-time pricing-based DR,

    O. Erdinc, N. G. Paterakis, T. D. P. Mendes, A. G. Bakirtzis, and J. P. S. Catal˜ao, “Smart household operation considering bi-directional EV and ESS utilization by real-time pricing-based DR,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1281–1291, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Multi- agent reinforcement learning for intelligent V2G integration in future transportation systems,

    J. Dong, A. Yassine, A. Armitage, and M. S. Hossain, “Multi- agent reinforcement learning for intelligent V2G integration in future transportation systems,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 15 974–15 983, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Revenue opportunities by integrating combined vehicle-to-home and vehicle-to-grid applications in smart homes,

    T. Kern, P. Dossow, and E. Morlock, “Revenue opportunities by integrating combined vehicle-to-home and vehicle-to-grid applications in smart homes,” Appl. Energy, vol. 307, p. 118187, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Optimal V2G scheduling of an ev with calendar and cycle aging of battery: An MILP approach,

    R. Khezri, D. Steen, E. Wikner, and L. A. Tuan, “Optimal V2G scheduling of an ev with calendar and cycle aging of battery: An MILP approach,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electr . , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 10 497– 10 507, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Vehicle-to-grid optimization considering battery aging,

    C. F. Lee, K. Bjurek, V . Hagman, Y . Li, and C. Zou, “Vehicle-to-grid optimization considering battery aging,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 6624–6629, 2023, 22nd IFAC World Congress

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Online battery-protective vehicle to grid behavior management,

    S. Li, P. Zhao, C. Gu, D. Huo, X. Zeng, X. Pei, S. Cheng, and J. Li, “Online battery-protective vehicle to grid behavior management,” Energy, vol. 243, p. 123083, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Online optimization of vehicle-to- grid scheduling to mitigate battery aging,

    Q. Zhang, M. Ikram, and K. Xu, “Online optimization of vehicle-to- grid scheduling to mitigate battery aging,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 7, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Is awareness of public charging associated with consumer interest in plug-in electric vehicles?

    J. Bailey, A. Miele, and J. Axsen, “Is awareness of public charging associated with consumer interest in plug-in electric vehicles?” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. , vol. 36, pp. 1–9, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Park, Fundamentals of Engineering Economics

    C. Park, Fundamentals of Engineering Economics . Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Comprehensive modeling of temperature-dependent degradation mechanisms in lithium iron phosphate batteries,

    M. Schimpe, M. E. von Kuepach, M. Naumann, H. C. Hesse, K. Smith, and A. Jossen, “Comprehensive modeling of temperature-dependent degradation mechanisms in lithium iron phosphate batteries,” J. Elec- trochem. Soc., vol. 165, no. 2, p. A181, jan 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Optimization of electric vehicle charging for battery maintenance and degradation manage- ment,

    C.-H. Chung, S. Jangra, Q. Lai, and X. Lin, “Optimization of electric vehicle charging for battery maintenance and degradation manage- ment,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electr ., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 958–969, 2020

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Hybrid deep neural model for hourly solar irradiance forecasting,

    X. Huang, Q. Li, Y . Tai, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, J. Shi, B. Gao, and W. Liu, “Hybrid deep neural model for hourly solar irradiance forecasting,” Renew. Energy, vol. 171, pp. 1041–1060, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Electrical load forecasting model using hybrid LSTM neural networks with online correction,

    N. Lu, Q. Ouyang, Y . Li, and C. Zou, “Electrical load forecasting model using hybrid LSTM neural networks with online correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03898 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    End-use load profiles for the U.S. building stock [data set],

    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), “End-use load profiles for the U.S. building stock [data set],” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://data.openei.org/submissions/4520

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Transparency platform,

    ENTSO-E, “Transparency platform,” Accessed: 2025-02-04. [Online]. Available: https://transparency.entsoe.eu

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,” Math. Program. Comput. , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019

    work page 2019