A New Method for Peer Matching and Negotiation of Prosumers in Peer-to-Peer Energy Markets
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
This article presents a scalable mechanism for peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading among prosumers in a smart grid. In the proposed mechanism, prosumers engage in a non-mediated negotiation with their peers to reach an agreement on the price and quantity of energy to be exchanged. Instead of concurrent bilateral negotiation between all peers with high overheads, an iterative peer matching process is employed to match peers for bilateral negotiation. The proposed negotiation algorithm enables prosumers to come to an agreement, given that they have no prior knowledge about the preference structure of their trading partners. A greediness factor is introduced to model the selfish behavior of prosumers in the negotiation process and to investigate its impact on the negotiation outcome. In order to recover the costs related to power losses, a transaction fee is applied to each transaction that enables the grid operator to recover incurred losses due to P2P trades. The case studies demonstrate that the proposed mechanism discourages greedy behavior of prosumers in the negotiation process as it does not increase their economic surplus. Also, it has an appropriate performance from the computation overheads and scalability perspectives.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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