Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 34 references

Data-Driven Evolutionary Game-Based Model Predictive Control for Hybrid Renewable Energy Dispatch in Autonomous Ships

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read EG-MPC lowers simulated ship energy cost below five benchmark dispatch strategies

desk verdict A relevant application of GA-MPC to ship microgrids, but the central cost claim is under-specified and the paper is not ready for review. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14750 v1 pith:LQQ7BS3O submitted 2025-04-20 eess.SY cs.SY

Yaoze Liu , Zhen Tian , Jinming Yang , Zhihao Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords evolutionarygametheorymodelpredictivecontrolhybridrenewableenergysystemautonomousshipdispatchbatterydegradationdieselbackuplinearregression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a data-driven Evolutionary Game-Based Model Predictive Control (EG-MPC) framework for the energy dispatch of a hybrid renewable energy system on an autonomous ship. It claims that embedding evolutionary game dynamics into a receding-horizon optimization framework lets the controller adaptively balance solar, wind, battery, and diesel backup to minimize total cost, including battery degradation and diesel fuel costs. The renewable forecast is grounded in a linear regression model fitted to HOMER-generated site-specific resource data for a maritime location. In a 24-hour simulation, EG-MPC achieves the lowest total energy cost compared with Renewable-First, Battery-First, 50/50 Split, standard MPC, and Ant-Colony MPC. The authors argue this demonstrates superior dynamic optimization under uncertainty, relevant for offshore aquaculture and other autonomous maritime applications.

What carries the argument

The central object is the EG-MPC controller, an MPC loop whose optimization is solved by an evolutionary game search over discrete charging and discharging actions. The cost function couples a battery cycling cost ($c_{\text{bat}}\cdot p_{\text{dis}}$), a diesel backup cost ($c_{\text{backup}}\cdot p_{\text{backup}}$), and SOC penalty terms, while the linear renewable model converts irradiance and wind speed into a renewable-power forecast inside the prediction horizon. Candidate control sequences are generated, evaluated by the cumulative cost function, and refined through fitness-proportionate selection, multi-point crossover, and mutation, with the best candidate applied and the SOC updated at each time step.

What would settle it

Compute the out-of-sample prediction error of the linear renewable model against a full year of actual irradiance and wind-speed measurements at the stated coordinates; if the model's residuals are large enough to change the cheapest dispatch decision, for instance when a low-cost renewable forecast flips to requiring diesel, the claimed cost advantage would not survive real deployment. Alternatively, run a hardware-in-the-loop test where the same 24-hour load profile is repeated under measured weather data and compare total costs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that EG-MPC outperforms all benchmark dispatch strategies in a simulated 24-hour scenario: it maintains near-flat backup power usage, achieves the lowest hourly cost over most hours, and records the lowest total energy cost (Fig. 9). The driver is the interaction between two components: a linear renewable-generation model, $P_{\text{total}} = -166.3272 + 15\cdot \text{Irr} + 51.7979\cdot v - 0.047\cdot v^3$, that gives the MPC cheap convex predictions, and evolutionary game dynamics that search candidate control sequences via selection, crossover, and mutation before each control step. The authors claim this combination gives adaptability that static rules and standard MPC lack, while remaining computationally efficient enough for real-time shipboard use.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on the assumption that the linear regression model fitted to HOMER-generated synthetic data accurately predicts real renewable output at that location, so that the simulated solar and wind profiles can be treated as genuine field conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, EG-MPC offers a computationally feasible way to add adaptive search to MPC for small shipboard microgrids without resorting to heavier nonlinear optimization.
  • The linear renewable model tied to site-specific irradiance and wind data suggests the method can be re-fitted to other maritime locations with minimal engineering effort.
  • The cost formulation directly penalizes battery cycling and diesel use, so the claimed savings reflect both fuel economy and extended battery life.
  • The near-flat backup power profile implies more reliable operation in the sense of fewer diesel starts and lower peak backup draws.
  • The receding-horizon structure with evolutionary search is a template for other autonomous platforms with similar hybrid power systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strength of the claim depends on whether the HOMER-generated synthetic resource data faithfully represents real meteorological conditions at 56.47°N, -6.55°W; a fair test would run the same controller on several actual weather years, including winter storms and low-wind lulls.
  • Because the cost comparison is a single 24-hour run, the claimed total-cost advantage may not generalize; a natural extension is a year-long simulation with season-dependent parameters to see if the adaptive mechanism pays for its search overhead.
  • The evolutionary search's benefit over standard MPC likely grows with forecast error; this suggests a direct experiment where renewable forecasts are deliberately corrupted to measure how each controller's cost degrades.
  • A logical next step implied but not explored by the authors is a cooperative multi-ship extension, where shared energy storage or coordinated dispatch could amplify the cost savings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven Evolutionary Game-based Model Predictive Control (EG-MPC) framework for hybrid renewable energy dispatch on an autonomous ship, combining solar PV, wind, battery storage, and diesel backup. A linear regression model is fitted to HOMER-generated synthetic resource data to predict renewable generation, and an MPC problem with a cost function including battery degradation and backup costs is solved using an evolutionary algorithm described as evolutionary game dynamics. Simulations over a 24-hour horizon compare EG-MPC with rule-based, standard MPC, and AC-MPC baselines, and the paper claims that EG-MPC achieves the lowest total energy cost while minimizing backup power usage.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the paper could be relevant to energy management for autonomous marine vessels, combining data-driven forecasting with predictive control and metaheuristic search. The problem is practically motivated, and the idea of embedding an evolutionary search inside MPC is not without interest. However, the manuscript currently does not contain a complete, reproducible optimization formulation: a key term in the MPC dynamics is undefined, cost coefficients are not given, and the experimental evaluation is a single synthetic-data run without statistical support. The presentation also overstates the role of real-world data. As submitted, the significance of the claimed cost advantage is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.E, Eq. (11)] The SOC dynamics in Eq. (11) include an undefined matrix W multiplying Prenewable(T). W is never defined anywhere in the manuscript. If W is nonzero, the dynamics used in the optimization differ from the battery dynamics in Eq. (1), which are used in Algorithm 1 Step 2 and in the candidate cost evaluation Eq. (14); if W is zero, the renewable term is superfluous and the paper does not state which formulation was actually implemented. Moreover, the backup-power balance constraint that appears in Eq. (6) is omitted from Eq. (11). As a result, the optimization problem whose solution produces Fig. 9 is under-specified and cannot be re-implemented or verified.
  2. [Section III.B and Section IV.B] The cost function in Eqs. (3)-(4) contains coefficients c_bat, c_backup, Q, and R, but no numerical values are provided for any of them. Since the dollar amounts in Figs. 8 and 9 are direct outputs of this cost function, the central cost comparison is not reproducible. Additionally, the comparison is based on a single 24-hour simulation run with no multiple trials, confidence intervals, or sensitivity analysis; the claim that EG-MPC 'achieves the lowest total energy cost' is therefore not statistically supported.
  3. [Section III.D.1 and Section IV.A] The text states that the renewable-generation model is fitted to 'HOMER-generated synthetic resource datasets' and then uses the same fitted model to produce Prenewable(t) inside the dispatch simulation, evaluating the results on the same dataset. The abstract and introduction call this 'real-world data,' but no independent real-world measurements are used. The evaluation is therefore circular with respect to the renewable-generation model, and the external validity of the cost results is not established.
  4. [Section III.I and Algorithm 1] The 'evolutionary game dynamics' are described in terms of fitness-proportionate selection, multi-point crossover, mutation, and Latin hypercube sampling — standard genetic-algorithm operations. No payoff matrix, replicator equation, evolutionarily stable strategy condition, or game-theoretic equilibrium is defined. The claimed connection to evolutionary game theory is asserted but not formalized, so the novelty of the method relative to a standard evolutionary MPC is not demonstrated.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section I] Typo: 'variaous' should be 'various'; Section II contains 'aurate' (likely 'accurate').
  2. [Section IV.B] The phrase 'including including' appears at the start of Section IV.B; delete the duplicate.
  3. [Section III.E] The heading 'F. MPC Optimization Formulation with Renewable Power' appears twice, and the section numbering is inconsistent (E followed by F, then G, H, I).
  4. [Section III.B, Eq. (4)] Q and R are described as 'penalty coefficient matrices' but are used as scalars in the max expressions; the dimensions should be clarified.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'based on real-world data,' but Section III.D.1 states the data are HOMER-generated synthetic resource datasets; the caption should be consistent with the text.
  6. [Section IV.B.2] The text acknowledges that after hour 11, Renewable-First and 50/50 Split show slightly lower backup-power usage than EG-MPC (Fig. 7); this is in tension with the blanket claim of 'minimizing backup power usage' and should be addressed in the conclusion.
  7. [Table 1] The table gives Pmax_ch = 1000 kW while Pmax_dis = 100 kW and Cbat = 1000 kWh; if intentional, the rationale should be stated. Also, SoC0 is given in kWh, while the SOC limits SOCmin and SOCmax are not specified numerically.
  8. [Section III.A, Eq. (2)] The disturbance term w(T) introduced in the linearized dynamics is never used in the subsequent optimization or simulation; it should either be integrated into the formulation or removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Renewable 'real-world' prediction reduces to the fitted regression; the cost comparison is built on that in-sample curve.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.D.1 (Eq. 7), Section IV.A / Fig. 6, Section III.I Flowchart Step 8]
    ""we fit a linear regression model to synthetic resource data generated using HOMER" ... "renewable energy forecasts are refreshed using the linear regression model" ... "The proposed linear model ... Ptotal = −166.3272 + 15·Irr + 51.7979·v − 0.047·v3, demonstrates high precision when compared to real-world data.""

    The renewable power used in the dispatch simulation is not measured or out-of-sample; it is the fitted regression function Eq. (7) evaluated on the same HOMER-generated synthetic dataset used to estimate the coefficients. Flowchart Step 8 says forecasts are refreshed with the linear regression model, so the 'real-world' renewable trace entering the energy balance and the cost comparison is the fitted curve by construction. Fig. 6 then 'validates' the model against the same fitting data (labeled real-data), which is an in-sample fit, not an independent prediction. Thus the claimed data-driven accuracy and the renewable-generation input to the cost comparison reduce to the least-squares fit itself.

full rationale

The central cost-superiority claim (Fig. 9) is not formally forced by the renewable fit: under the same renewable curve, EG-MPC could in principle lose to the baselines. However, the paper's 'real-world data' / 'prediction' framing is circular in the sense that the renewable forecasts are the fitted model evaluated on the very synthetic dataset used to fit it, and the model is then said to match 'real data' using that same in-sample comparison. No load-bearing self-citation chain exists: the authors' self-citations [1]–[4] appear only in the autonomous-vehicle introduction and are not used to justify the dispatch results. A separate, non-circular defect is that Eq. (11) introduces an undefined coupling matrix W in the SOC dynamics while Eq. (1), Eq. (6), and Algorithm 1 use dynamics without W, and the cost weights cbat, cbackup, Q, R are never given; these make the optimization problem behind Fig. 9 under-specified, but under-specification is a reproducibility issue rather than circularity. The circularity score of 6 reflects the one substantive constructed prediction: the 'real-world renewable generation' used throughout is the fitted curve itself, making the data-driven accuracy claim a restatement of the regression fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All simulation results depend on fitted regression coefficients, unreported cost weights, synthetic data treated as real-world, and an unvalidated equivalence between a genetic algorithm and evolutionary game theory. These are inputs the reader did not pay for elsewhere.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_1, alpha_2, alpha_3, alpha_4 = 15, 51.7979, -0.047, -166.3272
    Coefficients of the linear renewable model in Eq. (7), fitted to HOMER-generated data and then used inside the MPC simulation.
  • c_bat (battery cycling cost) = not reported
    Appears in cost functions (3) and (14); without a numeric value the cost comparison cannot be reproduced.
  • c_backup (diesel cost) = not reported
    Appears in cost functions (3) and (14); omitted from Table I.
  • Q, R (SOC penalty coefficients) = not reported
    Defined in Eq. (4) but values are absent, affecting the claimed optimal dispatch.
  • M, G, p_mut, Delta_P (evolutionary algorithm hyperparameters) = not reported
    Population size, generations, mutation probability, and action discretization step appear in Algorithm 1 but no values are given.
  • v(t) fixed wind speed = 8 m/s
    Table I fixes wind speed at 8 m/s, suppressing wind variability even though the renewable model includes wind speed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Battery SOC dynamics are linear and capture real battery behavior
    Eq. (1) uses an identity state matrix and constant efficiencies with no validation against battery cycling data.
  • domain assumption HOMER-generated synthetic resource data represent real-world conditions at the stated latitude and longitude
    Section II.D.1 describes the data as HOMER synthetic but the abstract and introduction treat them as real-world data.
  • domain assumption The linear regression model in Eq. (7) is accurate enough for dispatch decisions
    No R-squared, residuals, or out-of-sample validation are reported; only a visual alignment in Fig. 6 is shown.
  • domain assumption Total cost is a linear combination of battery discharge and diesel backup use
    Cost function (3) assumes linear degradation and fuel costs with no start-up costs or price variations.
  • ad hoc to paper Genetic algorithm operations are equivalent to evolutionary game dynamics
    Selection, crossover, and mutation are standard genetic algorithm operations; no replicator dynamics or population-game equations appear despite the EG-MPC name.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Driven Evolutionary Game-Based Model Predictive Control for Hybrid Renewable Energy Dispatch in Autonomous Ships." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQQ7BS3O

@misc{pith2026250414750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Driven Evolutionary Game-Based Model Predictive Control for Hybrid Renewable Energy Dispatch in Autonomous Ships},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQQ7BS3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14750}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a data-driven Evolutionary Game-Based Model Predictive Control (EG-MPC) framework for the energy dispatch of a hybrid renewable energy system powering an autonomous ship. The system integrates solar photovoltaic and wind turbine generation with battery energy storage and diesel backup power to ensure reliable operation. Given the uncertainties in renewable generation and dynamic energy demands, an optimal dispatch strategy is crucial to minimize operational costs while maintaining system reliability. To address these challenges, we formulate a cost minimization problem that considers both battery degradation costs and diesel fuel expenses, leveraging real-world data to enhance modeling accuracy. The EG-MPC approach integrates evolutionary game dynamics within a receding-horizon optimization framework, enabling adaptive and near-optimal control solutions in real time. Simulation results based on site-specific data demonstrate that the proposed method achieves cost-effective, reliable, and adaptive energy dispatch, outperforming conventional rule-based and standard MPC approaches, particularly under uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of autonomous ship. farms, which rely on floating structures, require a continuous and cost-effective power supply for various operational needs, including aeration, lighting, monitoring equipment, dead fish handling system, and feeding systems [9], [10]. Given their offshore location, these facilities have limited access to grid electricity and often rely on diesel generators, which introduce high fuel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed framework using EG-MPC based on real-world data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flowchart of Autonomous Ship Dispatching and the EG–MPC Process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparison of load power and renewable power among 12 months based on HOMER-generated synthetic resource datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface plot of total renewable energy generation as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface plot of linear model-generated function compared to real-data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of total cost among EG-MPC with other popular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Enhanced visual slam for collision-free driving with lightweight autonomous cars,

    Z. Lin, Z. Tian, Q. Zhang, H. Zhuang, and J. Lan, “Enhanced visual slam for collision-free driving with lightweight autonomous cars,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 19, p. 6258, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    A conflicts- free, speed-lossless kan-based reinforcement learning decision system for interactive driving in roundabouts,

    Z. Lin, Z. Tian, Q. Zhang, Z. Ye, H. Zhuang, and J. Lan, “A conflicts- free, speed-lossless kan-based reinforcement learning decision system for interactive driving in roundabouts,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08242, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Balanced reward-inspired reinforcement learning for autonomous vehicle racing,

    Z. Tian, D. Zhao, Z. Lin, D. Flynn, W. Zhao, and D. Tian, “Balanced reward-inspired reinforcement learning for autonomous vehicle racing,” in 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference . PMLR, 2024, pp. 628–640

    2024

  4. [4]

    Efficient and balanced exploration-driven decision making for autonomous racing using local information,

    Z. Tian, D. Zhao, Z. Lin, W. Zhao, D. Flynn, Y . Jiang, D. Tian, Y . Zhang, and Y . Sun, “Efficient and balanced exploration-driven decision making for autonomous racing using local information,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, pp. 1–17, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Novel comparison study between the hybrid renewable energy systems on land and on ship,

    F. Diab, H. Lan, and S. Ali, “Novel comparison study between the hybrid renewable energy systems on land and on ship,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews , vol. 63, pp. 452–463, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Two- stage coordinated operation of a green multi-energy ship microgrid with underwater radiated noise by distributed stochastic approach,

    Z. Fei, H. Yang, L. Du, J. M. Guerrero, K. Meng, and Z. Li, “Two- stage coordinated operation of a green multi-energy ship microgrid with underwater radiated noise by distributed stochastic approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Retrofitting vessel with solar and wind renewable energy sources as an example of the croatia study- case,

    T. Pe ˇsa, M. Kr ˇcum, G. Kero, and J. ˇSoda, “Retrofitting vessel with solar and wind renewable energy sources as an example of the croatia study- case,” Journal of marine science and engineering , vol. 10, no. 10, p. 1471, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Renewable energy storage and sustainable design of hybrid energy powered ships: A case study,

    M. Huang, W. He, A. Incecik, A. Cichon, G. Kr ´olczyk, and Z. Li, “Renewable energy storage and sustainable design of hybrid energy powered ships: A case study,” Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 43, p. 103266, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Investigating off-grid energy solutions for the salmon farming industry,

    H. L. Syse, “Investigating off-grid energy solutions for the salmon farming industry,” University of Strathclyde: Glasgow, UK , 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Profit and loss dynamics of aquaculture farming,

    P. Saha, M. E. Hossain, M. M. H. Prodhan, M. T. Rahman, M. Nielsen, and M. A. Khan, “Profit and loss dynamics of aquaculture farming,” Aquaculture, vol. 561, p. 738619, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Estimation of carbon footprints from diesel generator emissions,

    A. Q. Jakhrani, A. R. H. Rigit, A.-K. Othman, S. R. Samo, and S. A. Kamboh, “Estimation of carbon footprints from diesel generator emissions,” in 2012 International Conference on Green and Ubiquitous Technology. IEEE, 2012, pp. 78–81

    2012

  4. [12]

    Energy management strategies in hybrid renewable energy systems: A review,

    L. Olatomiwa, S. Mekhilef, M. S. Ismail, and M. Moghavvemi, “Energy management strategies in hybrid renewable energy systems: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 62, pp. 821–835, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    A review of energy management strategies for renewable hybrid energy systems with hydrogen backup,

    F. Vivas, A. De las Heras, F. Segura, and J. And ´ujar, “A review of energy management strategies for renewable hybrid energy systems with hydrogen backup,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 82, pp. 126–155, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    A review on recent size optimization methodologies for standalone solar and wind hybrid renewable energy system,

    M. D. Al-Falahi, S. Jayasinghe, and H. Enshaei, “A review on recent size optimization methodologies for standalone solar and wind hybrid renewable energy system,” Energy conversion and management , vol. 143, pp. 252–274, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Electrical power supply of remote maritime areas: A review of hybrid systems based on marine renewable energies,

    A. Roy, F. Auger, F. Dupriez-Robin, S. Bourguet, and Q. T. Tran, “Electrical power supply of remote maritime areas: A review of hybrid systems based on marine renewable energies,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 1904, 2018

    1904

  8. [16]

    Modelling and optimal energy management for battery energy storage systems in renewable energy systems: A review,

    Y . Yang, S. Bremner, C. Menictas, and M. Kay, “Modelling and optimal energy management for battery energy storage systems in renewable energy systems: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 167, p. 112671, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Model predictive control,

    B. Kouvaritakis and M. Cannon, “Model predictive control,” Switzer- land: Springer International Publishing , vol. 38, pp. 13–56, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Review on model predic- tive control: An engineering perspective,

    M. Schwenzer, M. Ay, T. Bergs, and D. Abel, “Review on model predic- tive control: An engineering perspective,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 1327–1349, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Recent meta-heuristics improved by self-adaptation applied to nonlinear model-based predictive control,

    E. D. M. Mesquita, R. C. Sampaio, H. V . H. Ayala, and C. H. Llanos, “Recent meta-heuristics improved by self-adaptation applied to nonlinear model-based predictive control,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 118 841– 118 852, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Research advance in swarm robotics,

    Y . Tan and Z.-y. Zheng, “Research advance in swarm robotics,” Defence Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 18–39, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    A survey on new generation metaheuristic algorithms,

    T. Dokeroglu, E. Sevinc, T. Kucukyilmaz, and A. Cosar, “A survey on new generation metaheuristic algorithms,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 137, p. 106040, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Ant colony optimization,

    M. Dorigo, M. Birattari, and T. Stutzle, “Ant colony optimization,” IEEE computational intelligence magazine , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 28–39, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    A comprehensive review of research works based on evolutionary game theory for sustainable energy development,

    G. Wang, Y . Chao, Y . Cao, T. Jiang, W. Han, and Z. Chen, “A comprehensive review of research works based on evolutionary game theory for sustainable energy development,” Energy Reports, vol. 8, pp. 114–136, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Dynamical tuning for mpc using population games: A water supply network application,

    J. Barreiro-Gomez, C. Ocampo-Martinez, and N. Quijano, “Dynamical tuning for mpc using population games: A water supply network application,” ISA transactions , vol. 69, pp. 175–186, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Evolutionary game-based dynamical tuning for multi-objective model predictive control,

    ——, “Evolutionary game-based dynamical tuning for multi-objective model predictive control,” Developments in Model-Based Optimization and Control: Distributed Control and Industrial Applications , pp. 115– 138, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    A comprehensive review on optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems using various optimization techniques,

    M. Thirunavukkarasu, Y . Sawle, and H. Lala, “A comprehensive review on optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems using various optimization techniques,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 176, p. 113192, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hybrid renewable energy systems: Influence of short term forecasting on model predictive control performance,

    L. Bartolucci, S. Cordiner, V . Mulone, and M. Santarelli, “Hybrid renewable energy systems: Influence of short term forecasting on model predictive control performance,” Energy, vol. 172, pp. 997–1004, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Homer resource data,

    “Homer resource data,” https://users.homerenergy.com/homer-pro/ download#, n.d., accessed: 12 February 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    In defence of the linear model: An essay,

    M. Balconi, S. Brusoni, and L. Orsenigo, “In defence of the linear model: An essay,” Research policy, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Operational optimization and demand response of hybrid renewable energy systems,

    X. Wang, A. Palazoglu, and N. H. El-Farra, “Operational optimization and demand response of hybrid renewable energy systems,” Applied Energy, vol. 143, pp. 324–335, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Modeling of hybrid renewable energy systems,

    M. K. Deshmukh and S. S. Deshmukh, “Modeling of hybrid renewable energy systems,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 235–249, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Power and energy management with battery storage for a hybrid residential pv-wind system–a case study for denmark,

    D.-I. Stroe, A. Zaharof, and F. Iov, “Power and energy management with battery storage for a hybrid residential pv-wind system–a case study for denmark,” Energy Procedia, vol. 155, pp. 464–477, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Energy management and optimization of a pv/diesel/battery hybrid energy system using a combined dispatch strat- egy,

    A. S. Aziz, M. F. N. Tajuddin, M. R. Adzman, M. A. Ramli, and S. Mekhilef, “Energy management and optimization of a pv/diesel/battery hybrid energy system using a combined dispatch strat- egy,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 683, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Tanimoto, Fundamentals of evolutionary game theory and its appli- cations

    J. Tanimoto, Fundamentals of evolutionary game theory and its appli- cations. Springer, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.