MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985124402 · doi:10.1137/060672911

A Semi-Lagrangian Approach for Natural Gas Storage Valuation and Optimal Operation

2007· article· en· W1985124402 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Scientific Computing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equationMathematicsApplied mathematicsValuation (finance)Viscosity solutionMathematical optimizationAugmented Lagrangian methodBounded functionMathematical analysisOptimal control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The valuation of a gas storage facility is characterized as a stochastic control problem, resulting in a Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman (HJB) equation. In this paper, we present a semi-Lagrangian method for solving the HJB equation for a typical gas storage valuation problem. The method is able to handle a wide class of spot price models that exhibit mean-reverting seasonality dynamics and price jumps. We develop fully implicit and Crank–Nicolson timestepping schemes based on a semi-Lagrangian approach and prove the convergence of fully implicit timestepping to the viscosity solution of a modified HJB equation posed on a bounded domain, provided that a strong comparison result holds. The semi-Lagrangian approach avoids Policy-type iterations required by an implicit finite difference method without requiring additional cost. Numerical experiments are presented for several variants of the basic scheme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it