A New Cooperative Game—Theoretic Approach for Customer-Owned Energy Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for energy storage systems (ESSs) alongside the continuous enhancements to storage technology have been of great positive impact on the electric grid. Their unceasing development has been driven by the need to accommodate increased penetration of renewable energy resources and defer capital investments, among other benefits. Moreover, ESSs have played a key role in the grid’s ability to cope with its ever-shifting load profiles, resulting in large economic gain for ESS owners. For this reason, this prospective study was designed to investigate privately-owned energy storage hubs (ESHs) and their interactions with potential customers as well as with the electric grid. This research examined two contrasting interaction approaches for customer-owned stationary energy storage hubs: a cooperative and a non-cooperative game-theoretic approach. The goal of the cooperative technique is to conduce to a correlated equilibrium increasing the social welfare of all players involved using a regret matching algorithm. On the other hand, in the non-cooperative approach, modeled as an ascending price-clinching auction, each player acts greedily, maximizing only their individual welfare. Implementing both case studies resulted in important insights into ESH players’ interactions and provided contrasting methods of modeling their behaviors. Finally, depending on the application at hand, the choice of one approach may be more realistic than the other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".