Privacy-Preserving and Approximately Truthful Local Electricity Markets: A Differentially Private VCG Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy-aware market participants care about the leakage of their private information via statistical releases of local electricity markets outputs. This kind of privacy breach would have major implications on the future transactions of the market participants and unauthorized observers’ beliefs about them. To address this challenge, we introduce the notion of noisy electricity markets in the framework of Differential Privacy (DP) for preserving the privacy of individuals and maintaining the utility of their data for social good. In this regard, this paper proposes a novel differentially private mechanism for local electricity markets that releases a near-optimal solution while guarantying the outputs of the market would reveal almost nothing about any individual’s input data. To do so, we implement the exponential mechanism for privatizing the baseline Vickrey–Clarke–Groves (VCG) mechanism in the proposed local electricity market. Moreover, we provide an upper-bound on the social welfare loss incurred by the privacy constraint and analyze the inherent trade-off between the privacy and suboptimality. In the end, numerical case studies for reflecting the theoretical properties of the proposed mechanism are provided.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".