Coordination Architecture Shapes Continuous Demand Response Outcomes in Building Districts
For building energy managers, the paper shows that coordination architecture fundamentally shapes the trade-off between grid tracking and occupant comfort, with hybrid approaches offering the best compromise.
The study compares four coordination architectures for building districts to track aggregated load profiles, finding that a hybrid MPC-SAC controller achieves the best balance with 4.8% NMBE tracking error, 16.8% comfort exceedance, and lowest spatial variability.
Grid-integrated building districts must provide energy flexibility while preserving occupant comfort and equitable distribution of control burden. We study how coordination architecture influences the ability of building clusters to track aggregated load profiles, comparing four paradigms: centralized model predictive control (MPC), decentralized independent reinforcement learning (SAC), centralized-training-decentralized-execution multi-agent RL (MAPPO), and a hybrid MPC--SAC controller that separates district-level battery optimization from building-level HVAC regulation. A rule-based controller serves as a baseline. We evaluate a 25-building residential district across three metrics: aggregate load tracking, thermal comfort, and spatial variability of control actions. We find that architecture choice determines the trade-off structure. Centralized MPC achieves low tracking bias (8.8% NMBE) but concentrates actuation on a subset of buildings, causing elevated comfort violations (24.8% exceedance) and spatial imbalance. Decentralized RL distributes control effort more evenly but fails to sustain accurate tracking. The hybrid architecture achieves the best balance: accurate tracking (4.8% NMBE), moderate comfort impact (16.8% exceedance), and the lowest spatial variability. These findings demonstrate that architecture choice determines the trade-off structure between tracking and comfort.