The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of peer-to-peer energy sharing mechanisms based on a multiagent simulation framework
Open accessAbstract
Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy sharing involves novel technologies and business models at the demand-side of power systems, which is able to manage the increasing connection of distributed energy resources (DERs). In P2P energy sharing, prosumers directly trade energy with each other to achieve a win-win outcome. From the perspectives of power systems, P2P energy sharing has the potential to facilitate local energy balance and self-sufficiency. A systematic index system was developed to evaluate the performance of various P2P energy sharing mechanisms based on a multiagent-based simulation framework. The simulation framework is composed of three types of agents and three corresponding models. Two techniques, i.e. step length control and learning process involvement, and a last-defence mechanism were proposed to facilitate the convergence of simulation and deal with the divergence. The evaluation indexes include three economic indexes, i.e. value tapping, participation willing and equality, and three technical indexes, i.e. energy balance, power flatness and self-sufficiency. They are normalised and further synthesized to reflect the overall performance. The proposed methods were applied to simulate and evaluate three existing P2P energy sharing mechanisms, i.e. the supply and demand ratio (SDR), mid-market rate (MMR) and bill sharing (BS), for residential customers in current and future scenarios of Great Britain. Simulation results showed that both of the step length control and learning process involvement techniques improve the performance of P2P energy sharing mechanisms with moderate ramping/learning rates. The results also showed that P2P energy sharing has the potential to bring both economic and technical benefits for Great Britain. In terms of the overall performance, the SDR mechanism outperforms all the other mechanisms, and the MMR mechanism has good performance when with moderate PV penetration levels. The BS mechanism performs at the similar level as the conventional paradigm. The conclusion on the mechanism performance is not sensitive to season factors, day types and retail price schemes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems
Wooldridge, M. (2002) · Cited by 5,394
(2015) · Cited by 3,471
Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I
Hairer, E., Nørsett, S. P., & Wanner, G. (1987) · Springer Series in Computational Mathematics · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-12607-3 · Cited by 2,397
Designing microgrid energy markets
Mengelkamp, E., Gärttner, J., Rock, K., Kessler, S., Orsini, L., & Weinhardt, C. (2018) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.054 · Cited by 1,578
An Introduction to Multi-Agent Systems
Balaji, P. G., & Srinivasan, D. (2010) · Studies in Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14435-6_1 · Cited by 1,376
McArthur, S. D. J., Davidson, E. M., Catterson, V. M., Dimeas, A. L., Hatziargyriou, N. D., Ponci, F., & Funabashi, T. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Power Systems · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2007.908471 · Cited by 1,092
Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I
Hairer, E., Wanner, G., & Nørsett, S. P. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1 · Cited by 912
Energy-Sharing Model With Price-Based Demand Response for Microgrids of Peer-to-Peer Prosumers
Liu, N., Yu, X., Wang, C., Li, C., Ma, L., & Lei, J. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Power Systems · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2017.2649558 · Cited by 855
Strategic gaming analysis for electric power systems: an MPEC approach
Hobbs, B. F., Metzler, C. B., & Pang, J.-S. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Power Systems · doi:10.1109/59.867153 · Cited by 821
Blockchain technology in the chemical industry: Machine-to-machine electricity market
Sikorski, J. J., Haughton, J., & Kraft, M. (2017) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.039 · Cited by 682
Cited by
A novel decentralized platform for peer-to-peer energy trading market with blockchain technology
Esmat, A., de Vos, M., Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, Y., Palensky, P., & Epema, D. (2021) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116123 · Cited by 420
Local flexibility markets: Literature review on concepts, models and clearing methods
Jin, X., Wu, Q., & Jia, H. (2020) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114387 · Cited by 373
Zia, M. F., Benbouzid, M., Elbouchikhi, E., Muyeen, S. M., Techato, K., & Guerrero, J. M. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2968402 · Cited by 355
Wolsink, M. (2024) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103392 · Cited by 30
Blockchain-Based Energy Applications: The DSO Perspective
Yagmur, A., Dedeturk, B. A., Soran, A., Jung, J., & Onen, A. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3122987 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, Y., Wu, J., & Long, C.
- Venue
- Applied Energy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 222
- Pages
- 993-1022
- ISSN
- 0306-2619 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2801383047
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 17.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of peer-to-peer energy sharing mechanisms based on a multiagent simulation framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.089
- The paper
- Zhou, Y., Wu, J., & Long, C. (2018). Evaluation of peer-to-peer energy sharing mechanisms based on a multiagent simulation framework. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.089
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.