An online procurement auction for power demand response in storage-assisted smart grids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quintessential problem in a smart grid is the matching between power supply and demand - a perfect balance across the temporal domain, for the stable operation of the power network. Recent studies have revealed the critical role of electricity storage devices, as exemplified by rechargeable batteries and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), in helping achieve the balance through power arbitrage. Such potential from batteries and PEVs can not be fully realized without an appropriate economic mechanism that incentivizes energy discharging at times when supply is tight. This work aims at a systematic study of such demand response problem in storage-assisted smart grids through a well-designed online procurement auction mechanism. The long-term social welfare maximization problem is naturally formulated into a linear integer program. We first apply a primal-dual optimization algorithm to decompose the online auction design problem into a series of one-round auction design problems, achieving a small loss in competitive ratio. For the one round auction, we show that social welfare maximization is still NP-hard, and design a primal-dual approximation algorithm that works in concert with the decomposition algorithm. The end result is a truthful power procurement auction that is online, truthful, and 2-competitive in typical scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it