Stochastic Modeling of Wind Derivatives with Application to the Alberta Energy Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind-power generators around the world face two risks, one due to changes in wind intensity impacting energy production, and the second due to changes in electricity retail prices. To hedge these risks simultaneously, the quanto option is an ideal financial tool. The natural logarithm of electricity prices of the study will be modeled with a variance gamma (VG) and normal inverse Gaussian (NIG) processes, while wind speed and power series will be modeled with an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU) process. Since the risk from changing wind-power production and spot prices is highly correlated, we must model this correlation as well. This is reproduced by replacing the small jumps of the Lévy process with a Brownian component and correlating it with wind power and speed OU processes. Then, we will study the income of the wind-energy company from a stochastic point of view, and finally, we will price the quanto option of European put style for the wind-energy producer. We will compare quanto option prices obtained from the VG process and NIG process. The novelty brought into this study is the use of a new dataset in a new geographic location and a new Lévy process, VG, apart from NIG.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".