Market-Clearing Mechanism for Demand Aggregation at the distribution level through Transactive Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demand aggregators work as service providers for both demand- and supply-side agents. Thus, they can add value to all the electric sector and link solutions across the complete power systems infrastructure. However, their implementation faces challenges related to outdated regulatory and market frameworks and customers’ uninterest. Indeed, the traditional hierarchical grid structure, which considers consumers as passive agents, does not incentivize the appearance of demand aggregators. This condition is currently changing due to Transactive Energy (TE) mechanisms that empower customers to contribute to grid management. Therefore, TE could be the appropriate environment to incentive demand aggregators to provide their services. In this context, the present paper analyzes a market-clearing mechanism in local distribution markets for demand aggregators to benefit from TE features coordinating flexible residential resources. The proposed configuration is a Stackelberg game where the aggregator parametrizes the residential demand to formulate an optimal pricing strategy. Simulations of the transactions show the feasibility of using an approximate model to parametrize and flatten the aggregated demand.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".