Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Distributed equilibrium seeking in aggregative games: linear convergence under singular perturbations lens

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TRADES, a fully distributed consensus-plus-gradient algorithm, converges linearly to the unique Nash equilibrium of strongly monotone aggregative games with local constraints, by separating fast tracking dynamics from slow strategy updates.

desk verdict The paper's central theorem overclaims a uniform linear rate that the reduced dynamics cannot support; the algorithm and singular-perturbation framing are sound, and the flaw looks fixable by making the constants depend on δ and γ. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21386 v1 pith:XSKKJKE7 submitted 2025-05-27 eess.SY cs.GTcs.SYmath.OC

Guido Carnevale , Filippo Fabiani , Filiberto Fele , Kostas Margellos , Giuseppe Notarstefano This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.GTcs.SYmath.OC MSC 91A1091A8093D2093C55
keywords aggregativegamesNashequilibriumseekingdistributedalgorithmssingularperturbationslinearconvergenceconsensustrackingstronglymonotonesmartgridvoltagecontrol
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

This paper proposes a fully distributed algorithm, TRADES, for computing Nash equilibria in aggregative games played over a communication network, where each agent's cost depends on an aggregate of all strategies that no agent can observe directly. It claims that with constant step sizes, TRADES converges linearly to the unique Nash equilibrium in strongly monotone games with local convex constraints. The proof works by viewing the algorithm as a singularly perturbed system: the consensus-based tracker that reconstructs the aggregate is the fast subsystem, and the projected-gradient strategy update is the slow subsystem. The paper also shows the scheme supports a generalized aggregative variable, not just the arithmetic average of strategies, and demonstrates this on a smart-grid voltage support problem with 321 agents. If the claim is right, it gives a communication-light, exact, linearly convergent alternative to best-response-based fully distributed solvers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the singular-perturbation decomposition of the stacked update into a slow strategy subsystem and a fast consensus-tracking subsystem. A coordinate change splits the tracking variable into a component along the consensus subspace, which stays zero by initialization, and an orthogonal component $z_\perp$; the fast subsystem has equilibrium $h(x) = -R_d^\top \phi(x)$, and the boundary-layer system becomes the linear contraction $\tilde z^{t+1} = R_d^\top W_d R_d \tilde z^t$. The reduced system, obtained by setting $z_\perp = h(x)$, is exactly the projected pseudo-gradient step with the true aggregator. Lyapunov lemmas for these two auxiliary systems, imported from the companion result [34], are combined through the singular-perturbation theorem [34, Th. II.5] to conclude exponential (hence linear) convergence.

What would settle it

Run TRADES on a small strongly monotone aggregative game with a directed doubly stochastic communication graph and initial tracking variables set to zero, choosing $\delta$ and $\gamma$ inside the ranges claimed in Theorem III.4; if the error $\|x^t - x^\star\|$ does not stay below a uniform exponential envelope $a_1 e^{-a_2 t}$ for all sufficiently long times, the linear-convergence claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem III.4: for the stacked TRADES dynamics, there exist positive constants $\bar\delta$, $\bar\gamma$, $a_1$, and $a_2$ such that, for any $\delta \in (0, \bar\delta)$, $\gamma \in (0, \bar\gamma)$, and any initial condition with the average of $z^0$ equal to zero, the error satisfies $\|x^t - x^\star\| \le a_1 e^{-a_2 t}$. This is linear convergence to the unique Nash equilibrium, obtained without a central authority and with constant step sizes. The proof interprets the algorithm as an interconnection of a fast subsystem that reconstructs the missing aggregative variable through neighbor communication and a slow subsystem that performs projected pseudo-gradient descent, then studies each subsystem separately.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of linear convergence depends on the singular-perturbation theorem and the two Lyapunov lemmas imported from [34] applying unchanged to the transformed interconnection (17); if that transfer fails or the imported result has a gap, the convergence claim is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fully distributed Nash equilibrium seeking in aggregative games can be performed with constant step sizes and still achieve linear convergence, removing the need for diminishing step sizes in this class of problems.
  • Exact, not approximate, Nash equilibria are reachable with only neighbor-to-neighbor communication, under strongly monotone pseudo-gradients and local convex constraints.
  • The scheme accommodates generalized aggregative variables, such as voltage-sensitive linear maps of the agents' strategies, widening its applicability beyond arithmetic-average aggregators.
  • The singular-perturbation decomposition provides a template for analyzing other discrete-time consensus-plus-optimization algorithms by separating fast tracking dynamics from slow strategy updates.
  • In the voltage support case study, the algorithm produces improved voltage profiles through reactive power compensation at the computed equilibrium, illustrating practical usefulness on a realistic grid model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof only requires the average of the initial tracking variable to be zero and the step sizes to be sufficiently small, quantifying how the rate constants $a_1, a_2$ depend on graph connectivity and strong-monotonicity constants could guide practical step-size tuning.
  • The same decomposition may extend to time-varying or asynchronous communication graphs if the fast subsystem remains uniformly exponentially stable over time, a case the paper does not treat.
  • The generalized aggregator formulation suggests that the framework could be used to regulate network-level quantities beyond averages, such as bus voltages or line loads, by encoding them in the aggregation rules.
  • A natural testable extension would be to check whether the proof survives nonlinear aggregation rules $\phi_i$, since the current assumptions only require Lipschitz continuity of these maps.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes TRADES, a fully distributed algorithm for Nash equilibrium seeking in aggregative games with local convex constraints and a generalized aggregator. Each agent performs a projected pseudo-gradient step with a constant step, while a consensus-based tracking variable reconstructs the missing aggregative information. The convergence analysis frames the update scheme as a singularly perturbed system with the consensus tracking as a fast subsystem and the gradient update as a slow subsystem. The main theoretical result, Theorem III.4, claims linear convergence to the unique Nash equilibrium with rate constants that are uniform over all sufficiently small step parameters. The proof decomposes the dynamics, identifies the fast and reduced systems, imports two Lyapunov lemmas from a companion paper, and invokes a singular perturbation theorem from the same companion. A numerical study on a voltage-support problem in a distribution grid illustrates the behavior of the algorithm.

Significance. If the qualitative conclusion is correctly established for each fixed parameter pair, the paper contributes a useful constant-step, fully distributed algorithm for a broad class of aggregative games, including non-average aggregators. The singular perturbation viewpoint is a natural and potentially productive lens for such two-timescale schemes. The voltage-support case study is realistic and shows the practical relevance of the generalized aggregator. However, the central theorem as stated is not correct: the claimed uniform linear rate cannot hold because the reduced-system contraction factor depends on the product of the two step parameters. This is a load-bearing defect that must be fixed by restating the rate constants as parameter-dependent. The core algorithmic idea and the qualitative convergence result appear salvageable, so the paper does not warrant rejection if the proof is repaired.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III-B, proof of Theorem III.4] The existence of constants a1 and a2 that are uniform over the whole rectangle δ∈(0,δ̄), γ∈(0,γ̄) is impossible. In the reduced system (23), for unconstrained or interior points the linearization around x* is x'−x* = (I − δγ∇F(x*))(x−x*) + o(||x−x*||), giving a spectral radius of 1 − δγλ_min + O((δγ)²). Thus the decay rate is governed by δγ and can be made arbitrarily slow within the stated rectangle. For a concrete two-agent quadratic game with F(x)=[1.5x1+0.5x2; 0.5x1+1.5x2], the reduced iteration has eigenvalues 1−δγ and 1−2δγ; for any proposed a2>0 one can choose δ,γ with δγ<a2, and then (1−δγ)^t > e^{−a2 t} for sufficiently large t. The same defect appears in Lemma III.6: inequality (24b) with c3 independent of δ,γ is not compatible with the expansion W(x+δf)−W(x) = −δγμ||e||² + O(δ²) for W=||x−x*||², because the O(δ²) term prevents a positive lower bound for c3 on the full product region. The theorem and lemma should be restated with a1, a2 (and c3) depending on δ and γ, or with a coupled smallness condition such as δγ < const. The qualitative linear convergence for each fixed parameter pair is plausibly correct and should be the stated claim.
  2. [§III-B] The proof of the main theorem is not self-contained at a load-bearing point. Lemma III.5 and Lemma III.6 are imported from the companion paper [34] and stated without proof, and the application of [34, Th. II.5] is asserted after only a brief Lipschitz-continuity check. Since Lemma III.6 is exactly where the uniformity defect described above enters, the authors must either prove these lemmas in the present setting with the correct dependence of the Lyapunov decay constants on δ and γ, or state the precise version of [34, Th. II.5] being used and verify all of its hypotheses for the system (17). The current sentence in Step 5 does not discuss the dependence of the resulting convergence rate on δ and γ, which is precisely the missing piece for a correct proof of linear convergence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma III.6] The statement says 'for all x, x1, x2, x3 ∈ X', but inequality (24c) only involves x1 and x2; the variable x3 is not used and should be removed.
  2. [§IV] The simulation uses δ=0.5 and γ=0.01. It is not clear whether these values lie in the theoretically guaranteed region (0,δ̄)×(0,γ̄). The authors should state explicitly that the numerical example is an empirical illustration, or provide bounds for δ̄ and γ̄.
  3. [Equations (14)-(15)] The identities involving R_d use '1' without dimension subscripts, which can be confusing since both 1_N and 1_{N,d} appear elsewhere. Writing 1_{N,d} explicitly in these identities would improve clarity.
  4. [References] The main proof invokes [34, Th. II.5] but the statement of that theorem is not recalled anywhere in the manuscript. Since the proof relies on it heavily, a short statement or a precise quotation would make the paper more readable and easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence theorem is derived from stated assumptions via an algebraic model reduction and an external singular-perturbation theorem, not from a parameter fit or a self-referential definition.

full rationale

The claimed linear convergence is not equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction. The algorithm (8) is explicit, and the proof decomposes it into fast dynamics (17b) and slow dynamics (17a) through the exact coordinate transformation (14); the fast equilibrium h(x) = -R_d^T phi(x) in (19) follows algebraically from double stochasticity, and substituting it into (17a) gives the reduced system (23) exactly. Lemmas III.5 and III.6, although taken from the authors' companion paper [34], are auxiliary statements about the boundary-layer and reduced systems and are cited with their own assumptions; the paper verifies the Lipschitz conditions needed to apply [34, Th. II.5], which is a general singular-perturbation composition result rather than a restatement of Theorem III.4. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction, and the generalized aggregator definition does not presuppose the equilibrium. A possible concern about the uniformity of the rate constants a1, a2 with respect to delta and gamma is a mathematical correctness question, not a circularity, and is therefore not reflected in this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

TRADES depends on standard strong-monotonicity, Lipschitz, and network assumptions and, crucially, on the authors' companion paper [34] for the singular perturbation theorem and both Lyapunov lemmas. No data-fitted constants or new physical entities are introduced; gamma and delta are user-chosen tuning parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • gamma = 0.01 (simulation); no explicit theoretical bound
    Gradient stepsize in Algorithm 1; Theorem III.4 only asserts existence of gamma_bar, so users must tune gamma by hand. The simulation uses 0.01.
  • delta = 0.5 (simulation); no explicit theoretical bound
    Convex combination parameter defining the slow subsystem; Theorem III.4 only asserts existence of delta_bar. The simulation uses 0.5.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Xi nonempty, closed, convex for all i
    Assumption III.1(i); used for projection onto feasible sets and for Nash equilibrium existence.
  • domain assumption Ji(., phi_i(.)/N + sigma_-i(x_-i)) is C1 for all x_-i
    Assumption III.1(ii); needed to define the pseudo-gradient and the reduced system.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-gradient F is mu-strongly monotone
    Assumption III.2; drives contraction of the reduced projected pseudo-gradient system.
  • domain assumption Componentwise Lipschitz bounds on gradients and phi_i with constants beta1, beta2, beta3
    Assumption III.2; makes the map f Lipschitz and ensures the singular perturbation theorem can be applied.
  • domain assumption G strongly connected, W doubly stochastic, self-loops included
    Assumption III.3 together with the graph definition in Section III-A; ensures the fast subsystem matrix R_d^T W_d R_d is Schur.
  • domain assumption Initialization satisfies 1^T_{N,d} z0 = 0, specifically z0_i = 0
    Used in proof Step 1 to eliminate the average coordinate zbar; exact tracking relies on this initialization.
  • domain assumption [34, Th. II.5], [34, Lemma III.4], and [34, Lemma III.5] are correct and applicable
    The proof of Theorem III.4 imports these results verbatim without reproving them. If any of these cited results fails, the main theorem is unsupported.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of the Nash equilibrium from [33, Th. 2.3.3]
    Used in Section III-A to define x* as the unique solution of the variational inequality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed equilibrium seeking in aggregative games: linear convergence under singular perturbations lens." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSKKJKE7

@misc{pith2026250521386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed equilibrium seeking in aggregative games: linear convergence under singular perturbations lens},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSKKJKE7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21386}
}
read the original abstract

We present a fully-distributed algorithm for Nash equilibrium seeking in aggregative games over networks. The proposed scheme endows each agent with a gradient-based scheme equipped with a tracking mechanism to locally reconstruct the aggregative variable, which is not available to the agents. We show that our method falls into the framework of singularly perturbed systems, as it involves the interconnection between a fast subsystem - the global information reconstruction dynamics - with a slow one concerning the optimization of the local strategies. This perspective plays a key role in analyzing the scheme with a constant stepsize, and in proving its linear convergence to the Nash equilibrium in strongly monotone games with local constraints. By exploiting the flexibility of our aggregative variable definition (not necessarily the arithmetic average of the agents' strategy), we show the efficacy of our algorithm on a realistic voltage support case study for the smart grid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence of the TRADES algorithm to the NE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Error in the distributed estimation ϕi(x t i ) + z t i of the bus voltage vector σ t ∈ RNbT , across iterates t. The shaded area refers to all N agents, a median case is shown by the solid red line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of bus voltages due to the additional EV loads in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Tracking-based distributed equilibrium seeking for aggregative games,

    G. Carnevale, F. Fabiani, F. Fele, K. Margellos, and G. Notarste- fano, “Tracking-based distributed equilibrium seeking for aggregative games,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , pp. 1–16, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Distributed equilibrium seeking in aggregative games: linear convergence under singular perturbations lens,

    G. Carnevale, F. Fabiani, F. Fele, K. Margellos, and G. Notarste- fano, “Distributed equilibrium seeking in aggregative games: linear convergence under singular perturbations lens,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2024, pp. 3918–3923

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Generalized Nash equilibrium prob- lems,

    F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized Nash equilibrium prob- lems,” 4OR, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 173–210, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    Price of anarchy in electric vehicle charging control games: When Nash equilibria achieve social welfare,

    L. Deori, K. Margellos, and M. Prandini, “Price of anarchy in electric vehicle charging control games: When Nash equilibria achieve social welfare,” Automatica, vol. 96, pp. 150–158, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Probably approximately correct Nash equi- librium learning,

    F. Fele and K. Margellos, “Probably approximately correct Nash equi- librium learning,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 4238–4245, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Charging plug-in electric vehicles as a mixed-integer aggregative game,

    C. Cenedese, F. Fabiani, M. Cucuzzella, J. M. Scherpen, M. Cao, and S. Grammatico, “Charging plug-in electric vehicles as a mixed-integer aggregative game,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 4904–4909

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Synchronization of coupled oscillators is a game,

    H. Yin, P. G. Mehta, S. P. Meyn, and U. V . Shanbhag, “Synchronization of coupled oscillators is a game,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 920–935, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    A distributed passivity approach to AUV teams control in cooperating potential games,

    F. Fabiani, D. Fenucci, and A. Caiti, “A distributed passivity approach to AUV teams control in cooperating potential games,” Ocean Engi- neering, vol. 157, pp. 152–163, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Aggregative games and best-reply potentials,

    M. K. Jensen, “Aggregative games and best-reply potentials,” Eco- nomic Theory , vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 45–66, 2010

    2010

  2. [9]

    A framework for receding-horizon control in infinite-horizon aggregative games,

    F. Fele, A. De Paola, D. Angeli, and G. Strbac, “A framework for receding-horizon control in infinite-horizon aggregative games,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 45, pp. 191–204, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    Semi-decentralized generalized Nash equilibrium seeking in monotone aggregative games,

    G. Belgioioso and S. Grammatico, “Semi-decentralized generalized Nash equilibrium seeking in monotone aggregative games,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 140–155, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Semi-decentralized Nash equilibrium seeking in aggregative games with separable coupling constraints and non-differentiable cost functions,

    ——, “Semi-decentralized Nash equilibrium seeking in aggregative games with separable coupling constraints and non-differentiable cost functions,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 400–405, 2017

    2017

  5. [12]

    Dynamic control of agents playing aggregative games with coupling constraints,

    S. Grammatico, “Dynamic control of agents playing aggregative games with coupling constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 4537–4548, 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    Nash and Wardrop equilibria in aggregative games with coupling constraints,

    D. Paccagnan, B. Gentile, F. Parise, M. Kamgarpour, and J. Lygeros, “Nash and Wardrop equilibria in aggregative games with coupling constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1373–1388, 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    An operator splitting approach for distributed generalized Nash equilibria computation,

    P. Yi and L. Pavel, “An operator splitting approach for distributed generalized Nash equilibria computation,” Automatica, vol. 102, pp. 111–121, 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    Distributed algorithms for aggregative games on graphs,

    J. Koshal, A. Nedi ´c, and U. V . Shanbhag, “Distributed algorithms for aggregative games on graphs,” Operations Research , vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 680–704, 2016

    2016

  9. [16]

    Discrete-time dynamic average consensus,

    M. Zhu and S. Mart ´ınez, “Discrete-time dynamic average consensus,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 322–329, 2010

    2010

  10. [17]

    Differentially private distributed Nash equilibrium seeking for aggregative games,

    M. Ye, G. Hu, L. Xie, and S. Xu, “Differentially private distributed Nash equilibrium seeking for aggregative games,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 2451–2458, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Distributed convergence to Nash equilibria in network and average aggregative games,

    F. Parise, S. Grammatico, B. Gentile, and J. Lygeros, “Distributed convergence to Nash equilibria in network and average aggregative games,” Automatica, vol. 117, p. 108959, 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    Asynchronous and time-varying proximal type dynamics in mul- tiagent network games,

    C. Cenedese, G. Belgioioso, Y . Kawano, S. Grammatico, and M. Cao, “Asynchronous and time-varying proximal type dynamics in mul- tiagent network games,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 2861–2867, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    A fully-distributed proximal-point algorithm for Nash equilibrium seeking with linear convergence rate,

    M. Bianchi, G. Belgioioso, and S. Grammatico, “A fully-distributed proximal-point algorithm for Nash equilibrium seeking with linear convergence rate,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2303–2308

    2020

  14. [21]

    Fast generalized Nash equilibrium seeking under partial- decision information,

    ——, “Fast generalized Nash equilibrium seeking under partial- decision information,” Automatica, vol. 136, p. 110080, 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    Distributed aggregative optimization over multi-agent networks,

    X. Li, L. Xie, and Y . Hong, “Distributed aggregative optimization over multi-agent networks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3165–3171, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Distributed online convex optimization with an aggregative variable,

    X. Li, X. Yi, and L. Xie, “Distributed online convex optimization with an aggregative variable,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 438–449, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Distributed online aggregative optimization for dynamic multirobot coordination,

    G. Carnevale, A. Camisa, and G. Notarstefano, “Distributed online aggregative optimization for dynamic multirobot coordination,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3736–3743, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Q at night: Reactive power out- side of feed-in operation,

    SMA Solar Technology, “Q at night: Reactive power out- side of feed-in operation,” https://www.sma-america.com/partners/ knowledge-base/q-at-night

  19. [26]

    Distributed reactive power feedback control for voltage regulation and loss min- imization,

    S. Bolognani, R. Carli, G. Cavraro, and S. Zampieri, “Distributed reactive power feedback control for voltage regulation and loss min- imization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 966–981, 2015

    2015

  20. [27]

    Distributed control and optimization for autonomous power grids,

    F. D ¨orfler, S. Bolognani, J. W. Simpson-Porco, and S. Grammatico, “Distributed control and optimization for autonomous power grids,” in 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), 2019, pp. 2436–2453

    2019

  21. [28]

    The value of reactive power for voltage control in lossy networks,

    M. Deakin, T. Morstyn, D. Apostolopoulou, and M. McCulloch, “The value of reactive power for voltage control in lossy networks,” in 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  22. [29]

    Control of pervasive domestic-scale inverters for minimizing total feeder power,

    M. Deakin, T. Morstyn, and M. McCulloch, “Control of pervasive domestic-scale inverters for minimizing total feeder power,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 189, p. 106770, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,

    M. Baran and F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, 1989

    1989

  24. [31]

    Equilibrium and dynamics of local voltage control in distribution systems,

    M. Farivar, L. Chen, and S. Low, “Equilibrium and dynamics of local voltage control in distribution systems,” in 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , 2013, pp. 4329–4334

    2013

  25. [32]

    Dynamic power distribution system management with a locally connected communication network,

    K. Zhang, W. Shi, H. Zhu, E. Dall’Anese, and T. Bas ¸ar, “Dynamic power distribution system management with a locally connected communication network,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 673–687, 2018

    2018

  26. [33]

    Facchinei and J.-S

    F. Facchinei and J.-S. Pang, Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems . Springer, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    NSGA-II with local search for a multi-objective reactive power compensation problem,

    D. F. Pires, C. H. Antunes, and A. G. Martins, “NSGA-II with local search for a multi-objective reactive power compensation problem,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 313–324, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    UK Day-ahead Prices: 21-22 Jun 2023, 5am-5am,

    ENTSO-E Transparency Platform, “UK Day-ahead Prices: 21-22 Jun 2023, 5am-5am,” https://transparency.entsoe.eu/transmission-domain/ r2/dayAheadPrices/show

    2023

  29. [37]

    My Electric Avenue Project,

    EA technology, “My Electric Avenue Project,” https://eatechnology. com/resources/projects/my-electric-avenue-data-download/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.