Skip to main content
Energy Informatics

Table 6 Evaluation results: (a) Flexibility Trinity, (b) Multienergy Node, (c) Support Vector Data Description, (d) OpenTUMFlex, (e) FlexOffer; Subsections: A Variety of devices, B Technical criteria, C Time related criteria, D Implementation & Comprehensibility, E Aggregation; \({\bar{z}}_{m,1}\): Arithmetic mean of respective sub category of modeling approach m; \({\bar{z}}_{m,2}\): Arithmetic mean of respective main category of modeling approach m; \({\bar{z}}_{m,3}\): Arithmetic mean of all criteria of modeling approach m

From: Choosing the right model for unified flexibility modeling

(a)

A

B

C

D

E

(b)

A

B

C

D

E

 

2

2

1

2

1

 

2

2

2

1

1

 

2

2

0

0

0

 

2

2

0

0

0

 

2

2

0

0

1

 

2

2

0

0

1

 

2

2

0

2

2

 

2

1

0

0

2

 

–

1

–

2

–

 

–

2

–

1

–

\({\bar{z}}_{a,1}\)

2.00

1.80

0.25

1.20

1.00

\({\bar{z}}_{b,1}\)

2.00

1.80

0.50

0.40

1.00

\({\bar{z}}_{a,2}\)

1.38

1.11

\({\bar{z}}_{b,2}\)

1.46

0.67

\({\bar{z}}_{a,3}\)

1.27

\({\bar{z}}_{b,3}\)

1.14

(c)

A

B

C

D

E

(d)

A

B

C

D

E

 

2

2

1

1

0

 

2

0

0

2

2

 

2

2

0

0

1

 

2

0

0

2

2

 

2

2

0

0

1

 

2

2

2

2

1

 

0

1

0

1

2

 

2

2

2

1

2

 

–

1

–

0

–

 

–

2

–

2

–

\({\bar{z}}_{c,1}\)

1.50

1.60

0.25

0.40

1.00

\({\bar{z}}_{d,1}\)

2.00

1.20

1.00

1.80

1.75

\({\bar{z}}_{c,2}\)

1.15

0.67

\({\bar{z}}_{d,2}\)

1.38

1.78

\({\bar{z}}_{c,3}\)

0.95

\({\bar{z}}_{d,3}\)

1.54

(e)

A

B

C

D

E

      
 

0

1

0

2

2

      
 

2

0

0

0

2

      
 

1

2

2

0

1

      
 

0

2

2

1

2

      
 

–

2

–

1

–

      

\(\bar{z}_{e,1}\)

0.75

1.40

1.00

0.80

1.75

      

\(\bar{z}_{e,2}\)

1.08

1.22

      

\(\bar{z}_{e,3}\)

1.14

      
Back to article page