MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135395455 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2002.800947

Equilibrium of auction markets with unit commitment: the need for augmented pricing

2002· article· en· W2135395455 on OpenAlexaff
A.L. Motto, F.D. Galiana

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower system simulationProfit (economics)MicroeconomicsComputer scienceScope (computer science)Unit (ring theory)Competition (biology)EconomicsWork (physics)Market powerMathematical economicsElectric power systemOperations researchMathematical optimizationPower (physics)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss issues and methods for attaining equilibrium in electric power auction markets with unit commitment. We consider a generation-side competition whereby producers are profit maximizing agents subject to prices only. For expository purposes, we consider the single-period unit commitment problem, which is still quite rich for this presentation. We show that it is possible to eliminate the duality gap or cycling that occurs in a decentralized decision-making environment that encompasses discontinuous nonconvex programs. This result extends previous work on coordination of locally constrained self-interested agents, and it has a broad scope of applications that may be of interest to power systems engineers, market designers, economists and mathematicians.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations77
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207