pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.12197 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-13 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Recognition: no theorem link

Braess' Paradoxes in Coupled Power and Transportation Systems

Minghao Mou , Junjie Qin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords Braess paradoxcoupled power-transport systemscapacity expansionuser equilibriumeconomic dispatchcharging pricinginfrastructure planningelectric vehicles
0
0 comments X

The pith

Capacity expansion in either power or transportation networks can raise total costs in both when linked by charging points.

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

The paper shows that electrified transportation creates feedback between power grids and road networks through charging stations, so that adding capacity to roads or power lines can sometimes increase both travel times and electricity generation costs. This extends the classic Braess paradox to cross-system settings by modeling power dispatch as an optimization problem and traveler behavior as a user equilibrium that jointly selects routes and charging locations. The authors identify the mechanisms behind these effects in simple cases and then derive necessary and sufficient conditions for when the paradoxes appear in arbitrary coupled networks. They also construct charging price policies that can steer the equilibrium to avoid the bad outcomes. A reader would care because infrastructure planners routinely expand one system without fully accounting for responses in the other, risking investments that reduce rather than improve performance.

Core claim

In power-transportation networks coupled at charging points, an increase in the capacity of a link in either network can raise the sum of travel times and power generation costs. The effect occurs because drivers re-optimize their route and charging choices in response to the new capacity, which in turn alters power flows and prices. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the paradox are stated for general networks, and pricing rules at chargers are shown to restore better equilibria by reshaping the generalized user equilibrium of the coupled system.

What carries the argument

Generalized user equilibrium of the coupled systems, in which travelers jointly optimize route and charging decisions while the power system solves an economic dispatch problem, with the two linked only through the locations and prices at charging nodes.

If this is right

  • Planners must jointly evaluate capacity additions across both networks rather than assessing each in isolation.
  • Adjusting prices at charging stations can eliminate or reduce the paradoxical cost increases.
  • The derived conditions allow checking for the paradox in any given network without enumerating all possible expansions.
  • Both traveler delays and power system costs can worsen even when the added capacity is used.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar cross-system paradoxes are likely in other tightly coupled infrastructures such as gas and electric networks.
  • Integrated simulation tools that solve both dispatch and equilibrium simultaneously become necessary for reliable planning.
  • Real-time charging prices could be tested as a low-cost way to manage capacity constraints before physical expansions are built.

Load-bearing premise

The main interactions between the two systems are captured by connecting economic dispatch to user equilibrium solely through the locations and prices of charging points.

What would settle it

In a small coupled network, add capacity to one road or power line and measure whether the sum of total travel time and total generation cost rises under the same demand.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.12197 by Junjie Qin, Minghao Mou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 2-Route 2-Bus example. The arrow on the power line indicates the positive flow direction. where f denotes the power flow between the two buses with the positive direction indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Partial derivatives of social cost Φs, s ∈ {T, P, C} with respect to α1 when the model parameters are set as α1 = 100, α2 = 1, ¯f = 0.2, and ρ ∈ [0.5, 10]. We close this section by establishing that power system expansion induced BPs will not occur for the simple coupled network considered. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 2-Route 3-Bus example. The arrows on power lines indicate the positive flow direction. Similar to the example in §4.1, the transportation system consists of one origin and two sub￾stitutable destinations. The destinations are connected to charging stations which are connected to two different buses (buses 1 and 2) in a 3-Bus power network. As before, we assume β = 0 and consider only linear travel costs. T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GUE and social cost metrics change with ¯f3. Model parameters are set as α := [1, 10]⊤, ρ := 6, Q := diag([2, 1, 1]), and ¯f := [0.1, 0.3, ¯f3] ⊤, where ¯f3 ∈ [0.04, 2]. i.e., the change in the total transportation cost is driven by relocation of traffic flow induced by the increased line capacity. The relocation of traffic flow is due to the change in LMPs, as x ⋆ 1 = ρ(λ ⋆ 2 − λ ⋆ 1 ) + α2 α1 + α2 . (14)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GUE and power system social cost change with ¯f3. Model parameters are set as α := [1, 1]⊤, ρ := 6, Q := diag([0, 1, 1]), and ¯f := [0.1, 0.3, ¯f3] ⊤, where ¯f3 ∈ [0.04, 0.2]. We consider a different model parameter setting to demonstrate the existence of type P-P BP. The model parameters and how GUE changes with ¯f3 are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GUE and social cost metrics change with α1 where type T-T BP occurs. Model parameters are set as α := [α1, 1]⊤, ρ := 4, Q := diag([0, 0.1, 0.1]), and ¯f := [0.1, 0.3, 0.1]⊤, where α1 ∈ [3, 50]. 20 40 α1 0 1 2 3 4 ρx1 ρx2 g1 g2 g3 20 40 α1 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 λ2 λ1 20 40 α1 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 f1 f2 f3 20 40 α1 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 ΦP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GUE and power system social cost change with α1 where type T-P BP occurs. Model parameters are set as α := [α1, 10]⊤, ρ := 6, Q := diag([2, 1, 1]), and ¯f := [0.1, 0.3, 0.1]⊤, where α1 ∈ [3, 50]. characterizations, i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions, of the occurrences of various types of BPs, leading to managerial insights on the interaction between the power and transportation networks, and comput… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relations of occurrences and non-occurrences of BPs when the network at GUE is fully congested and active routes are non-overlapping. We visualize using solid arrows in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of subnetworks and route bundles. The black dashed line stands for a congested power line while all other solid power lines are uncongested, and the green dotted lines show the correspondences of routes and buses via chargers. The three buses at the top right corner form a subnetwork (V 1 P , E 1 P ), and the four buses at the bottom right corner form the other subnetwork (V 2 P , E 2 P ). The… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An example 4-Route 2-Bus system where independence holds. It can be checked Theorem 4-(b1) does not hold for P 1 , which implies type T-T ATBP does not occur with respect to P 1 (i.e., perturbing any link contained by P 1 ), and thus Theorem 5-(a1) fails for type T-T ATBP. Note that cˆ1 = ˆα1,1xˆ1 and it can be checked that ∂αˆ1,1/∂α3 < 0, Theorem 5-(a2) holds for P 1 . Therefore, type T-T BP occurs accor… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The coupled system. The left panel is the transportation network. Numbers on links represent the fixed travel times in minutes. The right panel is the power network, in which buses in green are generators and others in blue are load buses. bus 1, and the marginal cost difference increases. Consequently, ΦP increases (by ≈ 2.4%) (see the right panel of Figure 12a). Type T-P. The underlying mechanism drivin… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The occurrences of type P-P and T-P BPs. roads, the fixed travel costs are set to be 0. The new route introduced by the newly added road, route 11 (Davis, Winters, Fairfield, Fremont, Mtn.View, San Jose), is associated with the charger at Winters. In Figure 13a, we expand the capacity of road (Fremont, Mtn.View) by decreasing αFr,M from 10−3 to 2×10−4 and simulate the GUE dynamics. The top panel shows tha… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The occurrences of type T-T, P-T, and P-P BPs. for general systems might be much more complicated. We left the investigation of BP relations for general systems as a future direction. 8.2 Sensitivities of BP In the previous section we fix network settings and study the BPs induced by perturbations of α and ¯f. It is also interesting to study sensitivities of BPs, i.e., under a setting where some type of B… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: a), and the social cost increments in the fourth column are taken as the maximal possible increments when expanding line (6, 7) from 10MW to 80MW (i.e., the total increments of lines in Figure 14a). The numbers in parentheses are the percentages of increases compared to the social cost values when ¯f6,7 = 10MW. The second and third columns of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: a shows type T-P BP (see Figure 12b) is eliminated by applying Π⋆ P . Power system￾optimal pricing, as explained in §7, reimburses route travel costs, so effectively is incentivizing route selection based on LMPs. Expanding (Fremont, San Jose) then has no effect on route choices, and thus does not lead to load relocation to expensive generators. Figure 15b adopts the same setting as that induces type T-T … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Type P-T BP eliminated by the combined system-optimal pricing policy Π⋆ C. 9 Concluding Remarks BPs for coupled power and transportation systems are studied in this paper. Through simple 2- Route 2-Bus/3-Bus coupled systems, we demonstrate that all types of BPs can occur, and identify the underlying mechanisms that lead to the occurrence of such BPs. This leads to new insights for infrastructure planners … view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: BP strength and increments of social cost metrics when perturbing Q. 61 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Transportation electrification introduces strong coupling between the power and transportation systems. In this paper, we generalize the classical notion of Braess' paradox to coupled power and transportation systems, and examine how the cross-system coupling induces new types of Braess' paradoxes. To this end, we model the power and transportation networks as graphs, coupled with charging points connecting to nodes in both graphs. The power system operation is characterized by the economic dispatch optimization, while the transportation system user equilibrium models travelers' route and charging choices. By analyzing simple coupled systems, we demonstrate that capacity expansion in either transportation or power system can deteriorate the performance of both systems, and uncover the fundamental mechanisms for such new Braess' paradoxes to occur. We also provide necessary and sufficient conditions of the occurrences of Braess' paradoxes for general coupled systems, leading to managerial insights for infrastructure planners. For general networks, through characterizing the generalized user equilibrium of the coupled systems, we develop novel charging pricing policies to mitigate them.

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 generalizes Braess' paradox to coupled power-transportation systems modeled as graphs linked via charging points. Power operation uses economic dispatch optimization; transportation uses user equilibrium for route/charging choices. Analysis of simple systems shows capacity expansion in either network can degrade performance of both; necessary and sufficient conditions are derived for general networks via characterization of the generalized user equilibrium, and charging pricing policies are proposed to mitigate the paradoxes.

Significance. If the static coupling and equilibrium uniqueness assumptions hold, the work provides useful managerial insights for infrastructure planners by identifying when capacity additions produce counterintuitive cross-system deteriorations. The derivation of necessary and sufficient conditions and the mitigation policies constitute a clear theoretical advance over classical Braess results, with potential impact on electrified transportation planning.

major comments (2)
  1. [General coupled systems (characterization of generalized user equilibrium)] The necessary and sufficient conditions rest on characterizing the generalized user equilibrium of the coupled system, treating power marginal costs as fixed inputs to transportation UE while flows determine charging loads fed back to dispatch. If the equilibrium map is not contractive or the joint fixed point is not unique, capacity additions can shift to a different equilibrium whose total-cost comparison is not governed by the stated conditions.
  2. [Analysis of simple coupled systems] The demonstrations on simple coupled systems claim to uncover the fundamental mechanisms, yet the abstract and approach description provide no full derivations, numerical validation, or error analysis of the equilibrium solutions; this is load-bearing for establishing the new paradox types and their conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [General networks] Clarify the iterative solution procedure for general networks, including convergence criteria and handling of potential multiplicity.
  2. [Modeling sections] Ensure consistent notation for locational marginal prices and charging loads when moving between the power dispatch and transportation UE formulations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below, providing clarifications based on the existing analysis and indicating revisions where they will strengthen the presentation without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [General coupled systems (characterization of generalized user equilibrium)] The necessary and sufficient conditions rest on characterizing the generalized user equilibrium of the coupled system, treating power marginal costs as fixed inputs to transportation UE while flows determine charging loads fed back to dispatch. If the equilibrium map is not contractive or the joint fixed point is not unique, capacity additions can shift to a different equilibrium whose total-cost comparison is not governed by the stated conditions.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation on equilibrium uniqueness. Our derivation of the necessary and sufficient conditions for Braess' paradoxes in general coupled networks is based on an explicit characterization of the generalized user equilibrium, which treats the power marginal costs as inputs to the transportation UE and feeds back the resulting charging loads to the economic dispatch. This characterization assumes a unique fixed point, which is guaranteed under the strict monotonicity of the link cost functions and the convexity of the dispatch problem in our model. The conditions for paradox occurrence are stated relative to this unique equilibrium. To address the concern about non-uniqueness or non-contractive mappings, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the general-networks section clarifying the sufficient conditions for uniqueness (drawing on standard results for variational inequalities) and noting that capacity-expansion comparisons hold within the same equilibrium. This will be included as a revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Analysis of simple coupled systems] The demonstrations on simple coupled systems claim to uncover the fundamental mechanisms, yet the abstract and approach description provide no full derivations, numerical validation, or error analysis of the equilibrium solutions; this is load-bearing for establishing the new paradox types and their conditions.

    Authors: The abstract is necessarily concise and does not contain derivations, as is standard. However, Section III of the manuscript provides complete closed-form derivations of the equilibria for the simple coupled systems, explicit calculations of the total costs before and after capacity expansion, and numerical examples with concrete parameter values that validate the new paradox types and their mechanisms. These examples include direct computation of the user-equilibrium flows and dispatch solutions. We agree that additional error analysis would improve rigor. In the revised manuscript we will expand the numerical examples with sensitivity checks and bounds on the equilibrium solutions to further substantiate the claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivations rely on independent equilibrium characterizations

full rationale

The paper applies standard economic dispatch optimization and user equilibrium models to coupled graphs linked by charging points. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the generalized Braess paradoxes are obtained by direct analysis of the resulting fixed-point equilibrium map, without reducing any claimed prediction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional tautology. The simple-network examples and general-network pricing policies follow from the same equilibrium equations rather than presupposing the paradox outcomes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Relies on standard assumptions of convex economic dispatch and Wardrop user equilibrium; no new free parameters or invented entities introduced beyond the coupling graph.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Power system operation follows economic dispatch optimization and transportation follows user equilibrium.
    Invoked to characterize the coupled system behavior.
  • domain assumption Charging points provide the only coupling between the two graphs.
    Used to define the interaction structure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5462 in / 1136 out tokens · 25661 ms · 2026-05-16T23:07:28.752091+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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Electricity infrastructure trends,

    Alternative Fuels Data Center, “Electricity infrastructure trends,” 2024, accessed: 2024-05-23. [Online]. Available: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity infrastructure trends.html

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Braess’ paradox: Some new insights,

    E. I. Pas and S. L. Principio, “Braess’ paradox: Some new insights,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 265–276, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    The economics of traffic congestion,

    R. Arnott and K. Small, “The economics of traffic congestion,”American scientist, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 446–455, 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    The prevalence of Braess’ paradox,

    R. Steinberg and W. I. Zangwill, “The prevalence of Braess’ paradox,”Transportation Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 301–318, 1983

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    Understanding Braess’ paradox in power grids,

    B. Sch¨ afer, T. Pesch, D. Manik, J. Gollenstede, G. Lin, H.-P. Beck, D. Witthaut, and M. Timme, “Understanding Braess’ paradox in power grids,”Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 5396, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Paradoxical behaviour of mechanical and electrical networks,

    J. E. Cohen and P. Horowitz, “Paradoxical behaviour of mechanical and electrical networks,”Nature, vol. 352, no. 6337, pp. 699–701, 1991

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Folk theorems on transmission access: Proofs and coun- terexamples,

    F. Wu, P. Varaiya, P. Spiller, and S. Oren, “Folk theorems on transmission access: Proofs and coun- terexamples,”Journal of Regulatory Economics, vol. 10, pp. 5–23, 1996

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    On a paradox of traffic planning,

    D. Braess, A. Nagurney, and T. Wakolbinger, “On a paradox of traffic planning,”Transportation science, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 446–450, 2005

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Braess’ paradox in the age of traffic information,

    S. Bittihn and A. Schadschneider, “Braess’ paradox in the age of traffic information,”Journal of Sta- tistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2021, no. 3, p. 033401, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    The traffic assignment problem for a general network,

    S. C. Dafermos and F. T. Sparrow, “The traffic assignment problem for a general network,” inJournal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Series B, 73(2), 1969, pp. 91–118

    work page 1969

  11. [11]

    Braess’s paradox in large random graphs,

    G. Valiant and T. Roughgarden, “Braess’s paradox in large random graphs,” inProceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, 2006, pp. 296–305

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Braess paradox and double-loop optimization method to enhance power grid resilience,

    X. Zhang, H. Tu, J. Guo, S. Ma, Z. Li, Y. Xia, and C. K. Tse, “Braess paradox and double-loop optimization method to enhance power grid resilience,”Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 215, p. 107913, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Observation of the Braess paradox in electric circuits,

    L. S. Nagurney and A. Nagurney, “Observation of the Braess paradox in electric circuits,”Europhys. Lett, vol. 115, p. 28004, 2016

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Braess’s paradox in a loss network,

    N. Bean, F. Kelly, and P. Taylor, “Braess’s paradox in a loss network,”Journal of Applied Probability, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 155–159, 1997

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    Investigating Braess’ paradox with time-dependent queues,

    W.-H. Lin and H. K. Lo, “Investigating Braess’ paradox with time-dependent queues,”Transportation Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 117–126, 2009

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Empirical evidence for equilibrium paradoxes with implications for optimal planning strategies,

    C. Fisk and S. Pallottino, “Empirical evidence for equilibrium paradoxes with implications for optimal planning strategies,”Transportation Research Part A: General, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 245–248, 1981

    work page 1981

  17. [17]

    Network topology and the efficiency of equilibrium,

    I. Milchtaich, “Network topology and the efficiency of equilibrium,”Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 321–346, 2006

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Informational braess’ paradox: The effect of information on traffic congestion,

    D. Acemoglu, A. Makhdoumi, A. Malekian, and A. Ozdaglar, “Informational braess’ paradox: The effect of information on traffic congestion,”Operations Research, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 893–917, 2018. 39

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Network structure and strong equilibrium in route selection games,

    R. Holzman and N. Law-Yone, “Network structure and strong equilibrium in route selection games,” Mathematical social sciences, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 193–205, 2003

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Road paper. some theoretical aspects of road traffic research

    J. G. Wardrop, “Road paper. some theoretical aspects of road traffic research.”Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 325–362, 1952

    work page 1952

  21. [21]

    Network equilibrium of coupled transportation and power distribution systems,

    W. Wei, L. Wu, J. Wang, and S. Mei, “Network equilibrium of coupled transportation and power distribution systems,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 6764–6779, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Integrated pricing of roads and electricity enabled by wireless power transfer,

    F. He, Y. Yin, and J. Zhou, “Integrated pricing of roads and electricity enabled by wireless power transfer,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 34, pp. 1–15, 2013

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Optimal deployment of public charging stations for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,

    F. He, D. Wu, Y. Yin, and Y. Guan, “Optimal deployment of public charging stations for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 47, pp. 87–101, 2013

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Dynamic equilibrium of the coupled transportation and power networks considering electric vehicles charging behavior,

    Y. Song, D. Ngoduy, T. Dantsuji, and C. Ding, “Dynamic equilibrium of the coupled transportation and power networks considering electric vehicles charging behavior,”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, p. 104590, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Optimization of the power–transportation coupled power distribution network based on stochastic user equilibrium,

    X. Ma, Y. Jin, J. Li, W. Zhen, R. Xu, and G. Cao, “Optimization of the power–transportation coupled power distribution network based on stochastic user equilibrium,”Frontiers in Energy Research, vol. 12, p. 1444727, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Optimal pricing to manage electric vehicles in coupled power and transportation networks,

    M. Alizadeh, H.-T. Wai, M. Chowdhury, A. Goldsmith, A. Scaglione, and T. Javidi, “Optimal pricing to manage electric vehicles in coupled power and transportation networks,”IEEE Transactions on control of network systems, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 863–875, 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    On the interaction between autonomous mobility- on-demand systems and the power network: Models and coordination algorithms,

    F. Rossi, R. Iglesias, M. Alizadeh, and M. Pavone, “On the interaction between autonomous mobility- on-demand systems and the power network: Models and coordination algorithms,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 384–397, 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Generalized wardrop equilibrium for charging station selection and route choice of electric vehicles in joint power distribution and transportation networks,

    B. G. Bakhshayesh and H. Kebriaei, “Generalized wardrop equilibrium for charging station selection and route choice of electric vehicles in joint power distribution and transportation networks,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Simulation of electric vehicle driver behaviour in road transport and electric power networks,

    C. Marmaras, E. Xydas, and L. Cipcigan, “Simulation of electric vehicle driver behaviour in road transport and electric power networks,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 80, pp. 239–256, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Optimal traffic-power flow in urban electrified transportation networks,

    W. Wei, S. Mei, L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, and Y. Fang, “Optimal traffic-power flow in urban electrified transportation networks,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 84–95, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Generalized user equilibrium for coordinated operation of power-traffic networks,

    C. Shao, K. Li, T. Qian, X. Wang, and M. Shahidehpour, “Generalized user equilibrium for coordinated operation of power-traffic networks,” in2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Optimal joint operation of coupled transporta- tion and power distribution urban networks,

    K. Sadhu, K. Haghshenas, M. Rouhani, and M. Aiello, “Optimal joint operation of coupled transporta- tion and power distribution urban networks,”Energy Informatics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 35, 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Integrated pricing strategy for coordinating load levels in coupled power and transportation networks,

    Z. Zhou, Z. Liu, H. Su, and L. Zhang, “Integrated pricing strategy for coordinating load levels in coupled power and transportation networks,”Applied Energy, vol. 307, p. 118100, 2022

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Optimal pricing of public electric vehicle charging stations considering operations of coupled transportation and power systems,

    Y. Cui, Z. Hu, and X. Duan, “Optimal pricing of public electric vehicle charging stations considering operations of coupled transportation and power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3278–3288, 2021

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Nexus cognizant pricing of workplace electric vehicle charging,

    M. Mou, S. Qian, and J. Qin, “Nexus cognizant pricing of workplace electric vehicle charging,” in2024 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 4275–4282. 40

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Optimal scheduling strategies for ev charging and dis- charging in a coupled power–transportation network with v2g scheduling and dynamic pricing

    Y. Ran, H. Liao, H. Liang, L. Lu, and J. Zhong, “Optimal scheduling strategies for ev charging and dis- charging in a coupled power–transportation network with v2g scheduling and dynamic pricing.”Energies (19961073), vol. 17, no. 23, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Collaborative optimization framework for coupled power and transportation energy systems incorporating integrated demand responses and electric vehicle battery state-of-charge,

    L. Geng, C. Sun, D. Song, Z. Zhang, C. Wang, and Z. Lu, “Collaborative optimization framework for coupled power and transportation energy systems incorporating integrated demand responses and electric vehicle battery state-of-charge,”Energies, vol. 17, no. 20, p. 5234, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Optimal pricing strategies for distribution system operator in coupled power-transportation system,

    Z. Lu, N. Yang, Y. Cui, P. Du, X. Tian, and Z. Hu, “Optimal pricing strategies for distribution system operator in coupled power-transportation system,”Frontiers in Energy Research, vol. 11, p. 1343311, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Strategic pricing of electric vehicle charging service providers in coupled power-transportation networks,

    K. Li, C. Shao, H. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Strategic pricing of electric vehicle charging service providers in coupled power-transportation networks,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2022

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Pricing strategy for a virtual power plant operator with electric vehicle users based on the stackelberg game,

    Q. Liu, J. Tian, K. Zhang, and Q. Yan, “Pricing strategy for a virtual power plant operator with electric vehicle users based on the stackelberg game,”World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 72, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Game-theoretic optimisation of ev charging network: Place- ment and pricing strategies via atomic congestion game,

    N. Aminikalibar, F. Farhadi, and M. Chli, “Game-theoretic optimisation of ev charging network: Place- ment and pricing strategies via atomic congestion game,” inUK AI Conference. PMLR, 2025, pp. 43–52

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Dynamic pricing for load balancing in electric vehicle charging stations: An integration with open charge point protocol,

    A. Abida, M. Zegrari, and R. Majdoul, “Dynamic pricing for load balancing in electric vehicle charging stations: An integration with open charge point protocol,”Engineering Proceedings, vol. 112, no. 1, p. 11, 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Submodularity of storage placement optimization in power net- works,

    J. Qin, I. Yang, and R. Rajagopal, “Submodularity of storage placement optimization in power net- works,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 3268–3283, 2018

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    The bargaining problem,

    J. F. Nashet al., “The bargaining problem,”Econometrica, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 155–162, 1950

    work page 1950

  45. [45]

    Theorie der einfachen ungleichungen

    J. Farkas, “Theorie der einfachen ungleichungen.”Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), vol. 1902, no. 124, pp. 1–27, 1902

    work page 1902

  46. [46]

    Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

    B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 136–145

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Finite difference methods for differential equations,

    J. Randall, “Finite difference methods for differential equations,”A Math, vol. 585, 2005

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Lectures on parametric optimization: An introduction,

    G. Still, “Lectures on parametric optimization: An introduction,”Optimization Online, p. 2, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Multi-Parametric Toolbox (MPT),

    M. Kvasnica, P. Grieder, and M. Baoti´ c, “Multi-Parametric Toolbox (MPT),” 2004. [Online]. Available: http://control.ee.ethz.ch/∼mpt/

    work page 2004

  50. [50]

    The value of time in the united states: Estimates from nationwide natural field experiments,

    A. Goldszmidt, J. A. List, R. D. Metcalfe, I. Muir, V. K. Smith, and J. Wang, “The value of time in the united states: Estimates from nationwide natural field experiments,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Tech. Rep., 2020

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Studies in the economics of transportation,

    M. Beckmann, C. B. McGuire, and C. B. Winsten, “Studies in the economics of transportation,” Tech. Rep., 1956

    work page 1956

  52. [52]

    Potential games,

    D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley, “Potential games,”Games and economic behavior, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 124–143, 1996

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    P. A. Grillet,Abstract algebra. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007, vol. 242

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    Multi-parametric programming: theory, algorithms and applications,

    E. N. Pistikopoulos, M. C. Georgiadis, and V. Dua, “Multi-parametric programming: theory, algorithms and applications,”(No Title), 2007. 41

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    A note on the measurability of convex sets,

    R. Lang, “A note on the measurability of convex sets,”Archiv der Mathematik, vol. 47, pp. 90–92,

    work page

  56. [56]

    Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01202504

    [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01202504

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01202504

  57. [57]

    Transmission pricing and congestion management: efficiency, simplicity and open access,

    S. S. Oren, “Transmission pricing and congestion management: efficiency, simplicity and open access,” inProc. EPRI Conf. Innovative Pricing, 1998

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    Berge,Topological spaces: Including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces and convex- ity

    C. Berge,Topological spaces: Including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces and convex- ity. Oliver & Boyd, 1877

    work page

  59. [59]

    On LICQ and the uniqueness of lagrange multipliers,

    G. Wachsmuth, “On LICQ and the uniqueness of lagrange multipliers,”Operations Research Letters, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 78–80, 2013

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    A tutorial on sensitivity and stability in nonlinear programming and vari- ational inequalities under differentiability assumptions,

    G. Giorgi and C. Zuccotti, “A tutorial on sensitivity and stability in nonlinear programming and vari- ational inequalities under differentiability assumptions,”University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management, DEM Working Papers Series, vol. 159, 2018. 10 Appendices 10.1 GUE as the Optimal Solution to A Convex Program In order to screen BPs, w...

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    bα+ρ 2diag bQ −1 1⊤ 0 # , ˆv:=−

    It is straightforward to show the primal-dual tuple ((x L)⋆,{x ⋆ i,j, ν⋆ i,j,ξ i,j}(i,j)∈W ) satisfies KKT conditions of (42) and thus is optimal.□ Theorem 10(GUE Computation for Multiple O-D pairs).If we denotex:= [x i,j](i,j)∈W as a vector with entriesx i,j. The(price, travel pattern)pair(x ⋆,λ ⋆)is a generalized user equilibrium for the coupled power a...

    work page

  62. [62]

    First note that matrixP ⊤ has only eigenvectortS ⊤S1, t∈Rwith corresponding eigenvalue 1

    We next prove thatΠ ⊤S⊤S ∂A ∂αℓT S⊤SΠ≤0 for allΠfrom the given critical region. First note that matrixP ⊤ has only eigenvectortS ⊤S1, t∈Rwith corresponding eigenvalue 1. Any other vectors are all eigenvectors ofP ⊤ with eigenvalue 0. (i) IfS ⊤SΠ=tS ⊤S1for somet, then Π⊤S⊤S ∂A ∂αℓT S⊤SΠ=Π ⊤S⊤S ϵM− ∂M ∂αℓT S⊤SΠ=1 ⊤S⊤S ϵM− ∂M ∂αℓT S⊤S1= 0.(118a) 59 (ii) IfS ...

    work page