MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409102160 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3556955

Customizable Preference Models for Prosumers in Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading

2025· article· en· W4409102160 on OpenAlexafffund
Bahareh Abolhasanzadeh, Masoud Barati

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeer-to-peerComputer sciencePreferenceDistributed computingMicroeconomicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition toward decentralized energy systems necessitates advanced mechanisms for optimizing energy-sharing frameworks and dynamic supplier-consumer matching that aligns energy transactions with individual preferences. To this aim, this paper introduces a preference-driven approach for supplier-consumer matching in peer-to-peer (P2P) energy-sharing systems, addressing limitations in previous models that fail to capture the diversity and dynamism of consumer preferences. The proposed method introduces three customizable preference models and employs a multi-objective optimization model to evaluate suppliers based on critical attributes: cost, energy assurance, and security. Experimental findings validate the robustness of the proposed approach, demonstrating its ability to efficiently rank suppliers and accommodate consumer preferences across diverse scenarios involving large supplier pools and multiple attributes. The approach proves adaptable to varying consumer demands, balancing computational efficiency with responsiveness to consumer needs. The results underscore the potential of this approach to enhance energy-sharing systems by enabling more personalized and scalable supplier-consumer interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207