Smart Meters Big Data: Game Theoretic Model for Fair Data Sharing in Deregulated Smart Grids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggregating fine-granular data measurements from smart meters presents an opportunity for utility companies to learn about consumers' power consumption patterns. Several research studies have shown that power consumption patterns can reveal a range of information about consumers, such as how many people are in the home, the types of appliances they use, their eating and sleeping routines, and even the TV programs they watch. As we move toward liberalized energy markets, many different parties are interested in gaining access to such data, which has enormous economical, societal, and environmental benefits. However, the main concern is that many such beneficial uses of smart meter big data would be severely curtailed if the data were excessively protected due to individuals' privacy. In this paper, we propose a game theoretic mechanism that balances between beneficial uses of data and individuals' privacy in deregulated smart grids. Our mechanism solves the problem of access control by fairly compensating consumers for their participation in the data market based on the concept of differential privacy. The results of our experiments show the importance of taking consumers' attitudes toward privacy as a crucial element in designing balanced markets for fair data sharing. Furthermore, the experiments provide a principled way to choose reasonable values for privacy levels that are more relevant to real-world 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".