## 2 Related Work
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline
**Mechanisms/Techniques** & **Objectives/Requirements** & **Achievements** & **Limitations** \\ \hline Threshold based CSR [1] & Minimization of electricity bills. & Reduced cost. & Threshold-based cost minimization. \\ \hline GA [9] & Minimization of electricity bills. & Reduced electricity bill. & No PAR is considered. \\ \hline GA, TLBO [10] & Minimization of PAR and electricity bills. & Reduced cost and PAR with RES. & No end-user comfort priority. \\ \hline MFRynth DAP [11] & Minimization of total energy and electricity bill. & Reduced power consumption and electricity bill. & Less end-user comfort level. \\ \hline GPSO with DR [12] & Minimization of PAR and electricity bills. & PAR and minimization of electricity bill. & No end-user comfort level and no RES and congestion problem. \\ \hline MFRynth CA, PSO and CATSO [13] & Minimization of total energy and electricity bill. & Minimization of electricity bill. & Less end-user comfort level and no RES. \\ \hline GA and TLBO algorithm [14] & Cost minimization plus congestion control. & Minimization of electricity bill. & Waiting time increased. \\ \hline PSO [13] & Optimization of the appliances. & Carbon emission, bill and waiting time minimization. & Less end-user comfort level and no RES. \\ \hline \(0/1\) MFR and GA [14] & Minimization of PAR and electricity bills. & Minimization of PAR and peak load shifting. & Less end-user comfort level and no RES. \\ \hline ACO [17] & Distributed RES usage is optimized. & Minimization of PAR and peak load shifting. & End-user comfort has been compromised. \\ \hline TOU along with RES and BSUs [18] & To minimize the end-user electricity bill. & Energy consumption balancing. & User comfort has been compromised. \\ \hline GA-based DSM [19] & Bill minimization for industrial, commercial and residential consumers. & Compared with EA, 20.95 reduction in bill. & End-user comfort has been compromised. \\ \hline DR with CPP and TOU [20] & Objective function generalization using the DR & Minimized residential consumer electricity bill. & End-user comfort is ignored. \\ \hline GA [21] & Bill minimization keeping consumers’ maximum satisfaction. & Managed the load as per end-user budget. & PAR has been compromised. \\ \hline EA with DAP [22] & Energy bill minimization. & Bill is minimized. & User comfort has been compromised. \\ \hline QCSSA and Q-RSPA [23] & Energy bill minimization. & Bill is minimized. & User comfort has been compromised. \\ \hline GA, ACO and BPSD [23] & Cost minimization plus congestion control. & Minimization of electricity bill. & Less end-user comfort level. \\ \hline GA-PSO [25] & Bill minimization keeping consumers’ & Minimized electricity bill. & Less end-user comfort. \\ \hline Multiobjective EA [26] & Minimization of electricity bill and appliances & Minimized electricity bill and appliances waiting time. & Appliances’ interrupptions increased. \\ \hline PL-generalized Benders algorithm [27] & Multi-residence and multi-class appilance. & Bill minimized with upper and lower bounds on user comfort. & No RES and BSUs are integrated. \\ \hline Game theory, Nash equilbrium [28] & Used distributed algorithm, minimization of PAR and discomfort & PAR and end-user discomfort have been minimized. & No RES integration. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Critical analysis of the related work. OSR, Optimal Stopping Rule; TLBO, Teaching Learning-Based Optimization; DAP, Day-Ahead Pricing; GPSO, Gradient-based Particle Swarm Optimization; TLGO, Teacher Learning-based Optimization with Genetic algorithm; CPP, Critical Peak Pricing; CP, Constrained Programming.