Demonstrates improved energy dispatch in urban mobility systems, highlighting enhanced resilience during grid faults.
The increasing electrification of urban transportation has formulated a tightly coupled energy-mobility nexus. Under extreme disaster events or grid faults, rapidly restoring power supply capacity and re-dispatching shared electric vehicle (EV) fleets are critical for enhancing system resilience. Existing co-optimization methods face the curse of dimensionality when dealing with high-dimensional discrete grid reconfigurations and continuous spatio-temporal EV queuing dynamics. While multi-agent deep reinforcement learning (MADRL) offers real-time responsiveness, it inherently struggles to satisfy strict physical constraints, frequently generating infeasible and unsafe actions. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a heuristic-guided safe multi-agent reinforcement learning (Safe-MADRL) framework for the resilient dispatch of the energy-mobility nexus. Instead of relying solely on black-box neural networks, the framework structurally embeds physical models and heuristic solvers into the learning loop. A quantum particle swarm optimization (QPSO) algorithm acts as a heuristic action refiner to ensure that grid topology actions strictly comply with non-linear power flow and voltage constraints. Simultaneously, a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model coupled with a single-queue multi-server (SQMS) model serves as a safety projection layer. This layer mathematically guarantees EV battery energy continuity and accurately quantifies spatio-temporal queuing delays at charging stations. Case studies on a coupled IEEE 33-node distribution system and a regional transportation network demonstrate that the proposed Safe-MADRL framework achieves zero physical violations during training and significantly outperforms traditional mathematical optimization and pure learning-based methods in computational efficiency, system power loss reduction, and overall operational economy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: