Demand Response Strategy Based on Reinforcement Learning and Fuzzy Reasoning for Home Energy Management

As energy demand continues to increase, demand response (DR) programs in the electricity distribution grid are gaining momentum and their adoption is set to grow gradually over the years ahead. Demand response schemes seek to incentivise consumers to use green energy and reduce their electricity usage during peak periods which helps support grid balancing of supply-demand and generate revenue by selling surplus of energy back to the grid. This paper proposes an effective energy management system for residential demand response using Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Fuzzy Reasoning (FR). RL is considered as a model-free control strategy which learns from the interaction with its environment by performing actions and evaluating the results. The proposed algorithm considers human preference by directly integrating user feedback into its control logic using fuzzy reasoning as reward functions. Q-learning, a RL strategy based on a reward mechanism, is used to make optimal decisions to schedule the operation of smart home appliances by shifting controllable appliances from peak periods, when electricity prices are high, to off-peak hours, when electricity prices are lower without affecting the customer’s preferences. The proposed approach works with a single agent to control 14 household appliances and uses a reduced number of state-action pairs and fuzzy logic for rewards functions to evaluate an action taken for a certain state. The simulation results show that the proposed appliances scheduling approach can smooth the power consumption profile and minimise the electricity cost while considering user’s preferences, user’s feedbacks on each action taken and his/her preference settings. A user-interface is developed in MATLAB/Simulink for the Home Energy Management System (HEMS) to demonstrate the proposed DR scheme. The simulation tool includes features such as smart appliances, electricity pricing signals, smart meters, solar photovoltaic generation, battery energy storage, electric vehicle and grid supply.Peer reviewe

Active Integrity Constraints and Revision Programming

We study active integrity constraints and revision programming, two formalisms designed to describe integrity constraints on databases and to specify policies on preferred ways to enforce them. Unlike other more commonly accepted approaches, these two formalisms attempt to provide a declarative solution to the problem. However, the original semantics of founded repairs for active integrity constraints and justified revisions for revision programs differ. Our main goal is to establish a comprehensive framework of semantics for active integrity constraints, to find a parallel framework for revision programs, and to relate the two. By doing so, we demonstrate that the two formalisms proposed independently of each other and based on different intuitions when viewed within a broader semantic framework turn out to be notational variants of each other. That lends support to the adequacy of the semantics we develop for each of the formalisms as the foundation for a declarative approach to the problem of database update and repair. In the paper we also study computational properties of the semantics we consider and establish results concerned with the concept of the minimality of change and the invariance under the shifting transformation.Comment: 48 pages, 3 figure

Handling Defeasibilities in Action Domains

Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning. In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a prioritized logic programming approach to handle defeasibilities in reasoning about action. In particular, we propose three action languages {\cal AT}^{0}, {\cal AT}^{1} and {\cal AT}^{2} which handle three types of defeasibilities in action domains named defeasible constraints, defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects respectively. Each language with a higher superscript can be viewed as an extension of the language with a lower superscript. These action languages inherit the simple syntax of {\cal A} language but their semantics is developed in terms of transition systems where transition functions are defined based on prioritized logic programs. By illustrating various examples, we show that our approach eventually provides a powerful mechanism to handle various defeasibilities in temporal prediction and postdiction. We also investigate semantic properties of these three action languages and characterize classes of action domains that present more desirable solutions in reasoning about action within the underlying action languages.Comment: 49 pages, 1 figure, to be appeared in journal Theory and Practice Logic Programmin

Disjunctive Logic Programs with Inheritance

The paper proposes a new knowledge representation language, called DLP<, which extends disjunctive logic programming (with strong negation) by inheritance. The addition of inheritance enhances the knowledge modeling features of the language providing a natural representation of default reasoning with exceptions. A declarative model-theoretic semantics of DLP< is provided, which is shown to generalize the Answer Set Semantics of disjunctive logic programs. The knowledge modeling features of the language are illustrated by encoding classical nonmonotonic problems in DLP<. The complexity of DLP< is analyzed, proving that inheritance does not cause any computational overhead, as reasoning in DLP< has exactly the same complexity as reasoning in disjunctive logic programming. This is confirmed by the existence of an efficient translation from DLP< to plain disjunctive logic programming. Using this translation, an advanced KR system supporting the DLP< language has been implemented on top of the DLV system and has subsequently been integrated into DLV.Comment: 28 pages; will be published in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin