Incentive based smart pricing scheme using scoring rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining appropriate pricing strategy for smart environment is important and complicated at the same time. In our work, we devise an incentive based smart dynamic pricing scheme for consumers facilitating a hierarchical scoring mechanism. This mechanism is applied between consumer agents (CA) to electricity provider agent (EP) and EP to Generation Company (GENCO). Based on the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS), a hierarchical scoring system is formed among these entities, CA-EP-GENCO. As CA receives the dynamic day-ahead pricing signal from EP, it will schedule the household devices to lower price period and report the prediction in a form of a probability distribution function to EP. EP, in similar way reports the aggregated demand prediction to GENCO. Finally, GENCO computes the base discount after running a cost-optimization problem. GENCO will reward EP with a fraction of discount based on their prediction accuracy. EP will do the same to CA based on how truthful they were reporting their intentions on device scheduling. The method is tested on real data provided by Ontario Power Company and we show that this scheme is capable to reduce energy consumption and consumers' payment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".