Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

When and How Should a Power Trader Engage in Arbitrage? Predict, then Contextually Optimize

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Decompose arbitrage into when, direction, and how far

desk verdict Three-stage decomposition of arbitrage bidding (when/direction/extent) with confidence-gated contextual optimization — structurally novel, but headline profit gain lacks significance testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07351 v1 pith:MWBLGUY5 submitted 2026-07-08 cs.CE

Yannick Heiser , Jalal Kazempour , Farzaneh Pourahmadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords electricitymarketarbitragecontextualoptimizationday-aheadbiddingsingle-pricebalancinghybridpowerplantconditionalvalue-at-riskprobabilisticclassificationdistributiondrift
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a three-stage framework for electricity market arbitrage that splits the bidding decision into explicit, explainable parts: a probabilistic classifier with confidence thresholds decides whether to engage and in which direction, and a contextual optimization step learns how large the deviation should be. The central object is the predict-then-contextual-optimize pipeline, which combines a binary classifier (predicting the sign of the day-ahead minus balancing price spread) with class-specific linear decision policies trained via a linear program that weights mean profit against conditional value-at-risk. The key structural insight is that under single-price balancing, the optimal bid reduces to an all-or-nothing rule determined solely by the sign of the price spread, so the entire problem hinges on confidently predicting that sign and then scaling the bet in proportion to contextual features. Evaluated on a real 7.2 MW wind farm in DK1 and DE/LU with rolling weekly retraining, the framework yields approximately 7% mean profit improvement over an arbitrage-free benchmark for a hybrid wind-plus-electrolyzer plant, with the electrolyzer providing additional flexibility that roughly doubles arbitrage gains relative to wind-only operation. The paper also shows that two parameter groups—confidence thresholds on the classifier and the CVaR weight in the optimization objective—provide separable, interpretable levers for tuning the profit-risk trade-off, and that profit improvements concentrate in windows where the feature-target distribution has not drifted far from training conditions.

What carries the argument

Predict-then-contextual-optimize pipeline: (1) probabilistic binary classifier (LightGBM) with a deadband quantile δ removing near-zero-spread samples and two confidence thresholds α⁻ and α⁺ converting probabilities into {long, short, arbitrage-free}; (2) two class-specific linear decision policies qₙₜ learned via a linear program that maximizes a weighted combination of expected profit and CVaR_ε, with constraints enforcing directional consistency with the classifier; (3) rolling-window retraining with 4-month training, 1-month validation, and 7-day test sets; (4) for the hybrid plant, an ex-post electrolyzer dispatch sub-problem optimizing residual allocation between hydrogen production (€

What would settle it

If the price spread sign cannot be predicted with materially better-than-chance accuracy out-of-sample under realistic market conditions, the classification stage adds no value over arbitrage-free bidding, and the entire framework collapses to the benchmark it aims to beat.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that decomposing the arbitrage bidding decision into a classification stage (when and direction) and a contextual optimization stage (extent) yields a framework that is both more explainable and more profitable than either implicit optimization or naive all-or-nothing rules. The classification stage uses a deadband to discard near-zero-spread training samples (where labels are noise-sensitive and arbitrage value is negligible) and confidence thresholds to default to arbitrage-free bidding when the predicted spread sign is uncertain. The optimization stage learns separate linear policy vectors for long and short classes, constrained so that the policy direction never違

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that a classifier trained on a 4-month rolling window can generalize to the 7-day test window that follows it—that is, that the joint distribution of market features and price-spread signs is sufficiently stationary week to week. The paper's own distribution-drift analysis shows this assumption is frequently violated: under severe drift, profit improvement collapses to zero or turns negative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the decomposition is correct, traders in single-price balancing markets can adopt a plug-and-play structure where any upgraded price-spread classifier immediately improves arbitrage decisions without re-architecting the optimization layer.
  • The finding that profit improvements collapse under distribution drift implies that the practical value of data-driven arbitrage frameworks is bounded by market regime stability, not by model sophistication alone.
  • The asymmetric risk effect—where the upper confidence threshold α⁺ on long bids dominates tail risk—suggests that long-position confidence should be regulated more conservatively than short-position confidence in volatile balancing markets.
  • The electrolyzer's role as an internal flexibility buffer that absorbs bid-forecast mismatches implies that co-located flexible loads can transform otherwise risky arbitrage positions into lower-risk ones, potentially changing investment incentives for hybrid renewable-plus-storage configurations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If widespread adoption of such arbitrage strategies occurs, the price spreads they exploit may compress, potentially reducing the very opportunities the framework targets—a feedback loop the paper explicitly defers but that would bound long-term profitability.
  • The 4-month training window may be too short to capture seasonal regime shifts in electricity markets; a longer or seasonally-stratified training window could improve generalization in high-drift windows, though at the cost of slower adaptation to structural market changes like the balancing-price regime shift observed in March 2025.
  • The deadband concept—dropping near-zero-spread samples from classifier training—could generalize to other decision problems where the target variable is near a decision boundary and labels are noise-dominated, such as congestion management or reserve activation decisions.
  • The separable risk-control structure (thresholds for engagement risk, β for magnitude risk) resembles a two-gate risk management architecture that could be applied to other sequential decision problems under uncertainty, such as virtual bidding in US two-settlement markets or cross-border arbitrage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a predict-then-contextual-optimize framework for opportunistic arbitrage bidding in electricity markets under single-price balancing. The framework decomposes the day-ahead bidding decision into three stages: (1) a probabilistic binary classifier with tunable confidence thresholds determines whether to engage in arbitrage and in which direction; (2) class-specific linear decision policies learned via contextual optimization determine the magnitude of the bid deviation from the wind power forecast; (3) ex-post profit is evaluated against realized prices. The approach is evaluated on a real 7.2 MW wind farm in DK1 and DE/LU, both standalone and as a hybrid power plant (HPP) with a co-located electrolyzer, using a rolling-window procedure with 22 weekly test windows. The authors report approximately 7% mean profit improvement for the HPP in DK1 relative to an arbitrage-free benchmark, along with a risk sensitivity analysis over confidence thresholds and a CVaR weight.

Significance. The paper addresses a practically relevant problem—opportunistic arbitrage under single-price balancing—that has received limited attention in the European market context. The three-stage decomposition (when/direction/extent) is a useful conceptual contribution that improves explainability over monolithic optimization approaches. The mathematical formulation (Section 2.2, Eq. 1) correctly derives the all-or-nothing result from linearity, and the contextual optimization LP (Eq. 7) is well-posed. The authors provide public source code (Heiser, 2026), a transparent distribution-drift analysis (Figure 7), and a thorough risk sensitivity sweep (Figure 10). The framework accommodates both standalone wind and HPP configurations without structural modification.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 5.2, Figure 8: The headline claim of ~7% mean profit improvement (239 vs 224 €/h for the HPP in DK1) is reported without any statistical significance test. Figure 7a shows per-window improvements swinging from approximately -100% to +75%, indicating very high variance across the 22 test windows. With such variance and only 22 observations, the 15 €/h mean difference may not be statistically distinguishable from zero. Since the entire contribution rests on the framework outperforming the arbitrage-free benchmark in mean profit—and since the framework simultaneously worsens CVaR 5% (-254 vs -214 €/h)—the reader cannot assess whether this is a genuine profit-risk trade-off or sampling noise. A paired test (all models are evaluated on the same windows) such as a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or alternatively bootstrap confidence intervals on the mean difference, should
  2. Section 4.1, Eq. (9): The HPP ex-post dispatch optimization uses a forecasted balancing price λ̂^B_τ to determine electrolyzer consumption, but the paper does not describe how this forecast is generated, what model produces it, or what its accuracy is. This is load-bearing because the HPP's profit advantage over the wind-only case (Figure 7, light blue vs dark blue) depends partly on how well the electrolyzer dispatch adapts to the realized balancing price. If the forecast is unrealistically accurate, the HPP advantage is inflated; if it is naive, the advantage may be understated. The paper should specify the forecasting method and, ideally, report its quality (e.g., MAE relative to persistence).
  3. Section 5.1: The evaluation period spans April 2025 to February 2026 (approximately 11 months), all after the March 2025 balancing market regime shift noted in Figure 2a. While the paper acknowledges distribution drift within this period (Figure 7), the entire evaluation covers a single market regime. The generalizability of the 7% improvement to other periods or market conditions is not established. The paper should explicitly state this as a limitation in the conclusions and, if possible, discuss whether the post-shift regime is expected to persist or whether further structural changes are anticipated.
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 3.1, Eq. (4): The threshold notation uses α⁻ and α⁺ in the text but the subscripts are not consistently rendered (e.g., 'α' without superscript appears in several places). Ensure consistent notation throughout.
  2. Section 5.1: The feature selection criterion ('SHAP importance above 0.6') is mentioned without specifying the scale or normalization of SHAP values. Clarify whether 0.6 is on the mean |SHAP| scale or another metric.
  3. Figure 7: The y-axis label 'Profit improvement (%)' could be misread as percentage-point improvement. Clarify whether this is relative improvement ((proposed - benchmark) / benchmark × 100).
  4. Section 5.2: The statement that Classification + Policies has '4% higher' mean profit than Single Policy (230 €/h) should be verified: 239/230 ≈ 3.9%, which rounds to 4%, but the CVaR comparison ('51%') appears to compute (254-168)/168 ≈ 51% as relative worsening, which should be stated more explicitly.
  5. Table B.1: The LGBM hyperparameter grid is small (2×2×2×2 = 16 configurations). Consider briefly justifying why this grid is sufficient, or noting it as a practical limitation.
  6. Section 2.2: The all-or-nothing result is derived for the wind-only case and then stated to extend to the HPP case by reference to Heiser et al. (2025) showing it 'numerically.' A brief statement of why the linearity argument does not directly extend (due to the electrolyzer constraints introducing coupling across time periods via the daily minimum hydrogen constraint (7f)) would help the reader.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. All three major comments are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised manuscript. Comment 1 (statistical significance testing) is fully correct: we will add paired tests and bootstrap CIs. Comment 2 (balancing price forecast for HPP dispatch) identifies a genuine documentation gap that we will close by specifying the forecasting method and reporting its accuracy. Comment 3 (single-regime evaluation) is a valid limitation that we will state explicitly in the conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section 5.2, Figure 8: The headline claim of ~7% mean profit improvement (239 vs 224 €/h for the HPP in DK1) is reported without any statistical significance test. Figure 7a shows per-window improvements swinging from approximately -100% to +75%, indicating very high variance across the 22 test windows. With such variance and only 22 observations, the 15 €/h mean difference may not be statistically distinguishable from zero. Since the entire contribution rests on the framework outperforming the arbitrage-free benchmark in mean profit—and since the framework simultaneously worsens CVaR 5% (-254 vs -214 €/h)—the reader cannot assess whether this is a genuine profit-risk trade-off or sampling noise. A paired test (all models are evaluated on the same windows) such as a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or alternatively bootstrap confidence intervals on the mean difference, should

    Authors: The referee is correct that statistical significance testing is absent and needed. We will add both a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test and bootstrap confidence intervals on the mean profit difference for all pairwise model comparisons in Section 5.2. We agree that with 22 windows and high per-window variance, reporting only the mean difference is insufficient. We will report p-values and 95% bootstrap CIs alongside the existing mean and CVaR5% values in Figure 8 and the accompanying text. We will also be transparent if the results do not reach conventional significance thresholds. We note that the contribution of the paper is not solely the headline profit improvement: the three-stage decomposition, the explainability of the when/direction/extent decisions, the risk sensitivity analysis (Figure 10), and the distribution-drift analysis (Figure 7) are independent contributions that do not depend on the mean profit difference being statistically significant. However, the referee's point that the profit comparison itself must be properly tested is well-taken. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section 4.1, Eq. (9): The HPP ex-post dispatch optimization uses a forecasted balancing price λ̂^B_τ to determine electrolyzer consumption, but the paper does not describe how this forecast is generated, what model produces it, or what its accuracy is. This is load-bearing because the HPP's profit advantage over the wind-only case (Figure 7, light blue vs dark blue) depends partly on how well the electrolyzer dispatch adapts to the realized balancing price. If the forecast is unrealistically accurate, the HPP advantage is inflated; if it is naive, the advantage may be understated. The paper should specify the forecasting method and, ideally, report its quality (e.g., MAE relative to persistence).

    Authors: The referee identifies a genuine gap. The balancing price forecast used in the HPP ex-post dispatch (Eq. 9) is generated by a simple persistence forecast, i.e., the forecasted balancing price for delivery period τ is the realized balancing price from the same period of the previous day. This is a deliberately naive method, chosen to reflect the information realistically available to a trader at the time of electrolyzer dispatch decisions (which occur after day-ahead gate closure but before real-time). We will add a sentence in Section 4.1 specifying the forecasting method and will report its MAE relative to realized balancing prices in the case study section. We agree that this matters for interpreting the HPP advantage: since the forecast is naive, the HPP profit advantage is if anything understated rather than inflated, but the referee is right that the reader needs this information to judge. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Section 5.1: The evaluation period spans April 2025 to February 2026 (approximately 11 months), all after the March 2025 balancing market regime shift noted in Figure 2a. While the paper acknowledges distribution drift within this period (Figure 7), the entire evaluation covers a single market regime. The generalizability of the 7% improvement to other periods or market conditions is not established. The paper should explicitly state this as a limitation in the conclusions and, if possible, discuss whether the post-shift regime is expected to persist or whether further structural changes are anticipated.

    Authors: This is a valid limitation. The entire evaluation period falls within a single balancing market regime (post-March 2025 Nordic mFRR activation method change), and the 7% improvement cannot be assumed to generalize to other regimes. We will add an explicit paragraph in Section 6 (Conclusions) stating this limitation. Regarding whether the post-shift regime is expected to persist: the March 2025 change reflects the implementation of the European harmonized imbalance settlement methodology and the new mFRR activation algorithm, which are structural design changes rather than transient conditions. However, further changes are anticipated, including the ongoing transition to 15-minute MTU and potential future modifications to the Nordic balancing market design. We will add a brief discussion of this. We also note that the distribution-drift analysis in Figure 7 already provides indirect evidence on within-regime generalization: the framework's profit improvements concentrate in low-drift windows and degrade under high drift, which is the expected behavior and suggests the framework adapts appropriately when retrained, but the referee is correct that cross-regime generalization is not tested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; derivation is self-contained with proper out-of-sample evaluation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is straightforward and non-circular. The core theoretical result (Section 2.2, Eqs. 1–2)—that the sign of the price spread determines the optimal bid—follows from direct algebraic substitution of the power balance constraint into the linear profit objective. The confidence thresholds (Eq. 5) are tuned on a validation set to maximize downstream profit, and the policy parameters (Eq. 7) are learned on training data using realized prices; both are standard supervised learning practices with a properly separated test set. The self-citation to Heiser et al. (2025) appears in supporting roles (all-or-nothing rule for HPP, linear policy building block, benchmark definition) but is not load-bearing for the central claim—the paper explicitly differentiates its contribution from that prior work by introducing class-specific policies and confidence thresholds. The 7% profit improvement is evaluated on genuinely out-of-sample test data via a rolling-window procedure, with public code. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, no target quantity is defined in terms of its own fitted parameters, and no prediction reduces to a fit by construction. The reader's concern about statistical significance is a correctness/evaluation issue, not circularity. Score 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. All components (classifier, policies, thresholds, electrolyzer model) are constructed from standard ML and optimization building blocks. The framework is a methodological contribution, not a theoretical postulation.

free parameters (10)
  • α⁻ (lower confidence threshold) = tuned over {0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45}
    Tuned on validation set to maximize downstream profit (Eq. 5, Section 3.1). Controls when opportunistic short bids are placed.
  • α⁺ (upper confidence threshold) = tuned over {0.55, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85}
    Tuned on validation set to maximize downstream profit (Eq. 5, Section 3.1). Controls when opportunistic long bids are placed.
  • δ (deadband quantile) = tuned over [0.0, 0.8]
    Fraction of training samples with smallest |Δλ| dropped from classifier training (Eq. 3, Section 3.1). Tuned via ROC-AUC on validation set.
  • β (profit-risk weight) = 0.7 (main results), 0.1–0.9 (sensitivity)
    Weight between mean profit and CVaR in objective (7a). Set exogenously by trader.
  • ε (CVaR tail probability) = 0.05
    Tail probability for CVaR computation in Eq. 7. Not explicitly stated but CVaR 5% is used throughout results.
  • q_{n_t} (class-specific policy vectors) = learned via LP (Eq. 7)
    Linear decision policy parameters mapping features to bid deviations, one per class (long/short). Learned on training set.
  • Γ (classifier hyperparameters) = LightGBM grid in Appendix B
    Learning rate, num leaves, min child samples, max depth tuned via ROC-AUC on validation set.
  • λ_H (hydrogen price) = €2/kg
    Set exogenously for case study (Section 5.1).
  • P̄_H (electrolyzer max power) = 3.6 MW
    Half of wind farm capacity, set for case study.
  • H̄ (min daily hydrogen production) = 100 kg
    Operational target, set for case study (Section 5.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The trader is price-taking: bidding decisions do not affect market prices.
    Stated in Section 1 and Section 2.2. Required for the linear objective in Eq. 1 and 7 to be valid. Reasonable for a 7.2 MW wind farm in DK1/DE-LU but would fail for large portfolios.
  • domain assumption The day-ahead price can be forecasted well enough that negative day-ahead prices can be anticipated and bids adjusted to minimum.
    Section 4.1: 'we assume that the day-ahead price can be forecasted well, i.e., if prices become negative, we adjust the day-ahead bid to its minimum.' This is a simplifying assumption that may not hold in practice.
  • standard math The all-or-nothing bidding rule (bid 0 or P̄_W depending on sign of Δλ) is optimal under single-price balancing.
    Derived in Section 2.2 from linearity of the objective. Correct given the assumptions. Extended to HPP case via Heiser et al. (2025) numerical evidence rather than formal proof.
  • domain assumption The balancing price forecast λ̂^B used for HPP electrolyzer dispatch (Eq. 9) is sufficiently accurate.
    Section 4.1: electrolyzer dispatch optimized against forecasted balancing price, but profit settled at realized price. If forecast is poor, dispatch is suboptimal. Not validated in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The 4-month training window captures sufficient market structure for the classifier and policies to generalize to the 7-day test window.
    Section 5.1: rolling window uses 4-month training, 1-month validation, 7-day test. The paper's own drift analysis (Figure 7) shows this frequently fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When and How Should a Power Trader Engage in Arbitrage? Predict, then Contextually Optimize." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWBLGUY5

@misc{pith2026260707351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When and How Should a Power Trader Engage in Arbitrage? Predict, then Contextually Optimize},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWBLGUY5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07351}
}
read the original abstract

Electricity markets increasingly expose stochastic energy generators to arbitrage opportunities between the day-ahead and balancing markets, driven by widening price spreads. However, opportunistic bidding, deliberately deviating from the production forecast to exploit anticipated price spreads, carries significant risk, and existing frameworks rarely offer explainable, risk-aware decision support. We propose a predict-then-contextual-optimize framework that decomposes the day-ahead bidding decision into three explicit stages to decide, when to engage in arbitrage, in what direction, and to what extent. A probabilistic binary classifier with confidence thresholds determines whether the predicted price spread is sufficiently confident to justify an opportunistic bid. Otherwise, the trader defaults to an arbitrage-free bid equal to the power forecast. A linear decision policy learned for each class via contextual optimization determines the magnitude of the bid deviation from the power forecast. The framework accommodates both standalone renewable generation and hybrid power plants combining renewable generation with other assets, such as an electrolyzer. We evaluate the framework on a real wind farm in the European bidding zones DK1 and DE/LU using a rolling-window procedure and compare it against several benchmark bidding strategies. The results show that the proposed framework increases mean profit relative to an arbitrage-free benchmark, reaching an improvement of about 7% for the hybrid power plant in DK1. The largest gains occur when distributional drift between training and testing windows is low, while the co-located electrolyzer further increases arbitrage value by providing additional operational flexibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Arbitrage bidding framework. Given context as input, the proposed framework deter￾mines when to engage in arbitrage, in what direction, and to what extent. The colors refer to the different model parts, that will be introduced in Section 3, a probabilistic classification model for prediction (green) and two linear policies learned using contextual optimization (blue). For a given sample, the framework can have eithe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Day-ahead and balancing prices and their spreads for DK1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rolling window procedure for training, validation and testing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training for Step 1: Probabilistic classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematics of the classifier hyperparameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Full testing phase. All steps of the testing phase are shown in the three dashed boxes. The box colors refer to the decision framework in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance under distribution drift. Weekly profit improvement of the Classification + Policies model for the HPP (light blue) and wind-only (dark blue) portfolios over the arbitrage￾free Bid Forecast benchmark across the rolling test windows. At the horizontal dashed…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Profit distributions across all test windows. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bidding behavior. Typical bidding behavior of the Classification + Policies model in the testing phase for the HPP. The top shows the consecutive day-ahead bids 𝑝 DA (blue) and the forecasted wind power production 𝑃ˆW (black) over one testing week (October 13 th - 19 t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Risk sensitivity analysis. Shown are (top row) the CVaR5% of the profit and (bottom row) the mean profit of the testing phase for the Classification + Policies model, as a function of the two confidence thresholds 𝛼 and 𝛼, for five values of 𝛽 in the optimization obje…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume =

    Baltaoglu, Sevi and Tong, Lang and Zhao, Qing , title =. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume =

    work page

  2. [2]

    Energies , volume =

    Browell, Jethro , title =. Energies , volume =

    work page

  3. [3]

    Management Science , volume =

    Bertsimas, Dimitris and Kallus, Nathan , title =. Management Science , volume =

    work page

  4. [4]

    2025 , author =

    A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision-making under uncertainty , journal =. 2025 , author =

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Avila, M. S. and Dominkovic, D. and Madsen, H. and Tsaousoglou, G. , title =. 2025 , booktitle=

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    , title =

    Isemonger, Alan G. , title =. The Electricity Journal , volume =

    work page

  7. [7]

    , title =

    Hogan, William W. , title =. The Electricity Journal , volume =

    work page

  8. [8]

    , title =

    Jha, Akshaya and Wolak, Frank A. , title =. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume =

    work page

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    and Colbert, Cathleen and Larrieu, Jeremy and Martin, Taylor and Mastrangelo, Erin , title =

    Parsons, John E. and Colbert, Cathleen and Larrieu, Jeremy and Martin, Taylor and Mastrangelo, Erin , title =. 2015 , number =

    2015

  2. [10]

    and Pfeifenberger, Johannes P

    Ledgerwood, Shaun D. and Pfeifenberger, Johannes P. , title =. The Electricity Journal , volume =

  3. [11]

    , title =

    Hopkins, Caroline A. , title =. Energy Economics , volume =

  4. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume =

    Li, Yinglun and Yu, Nanpeng and Wang, Wei , title =. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume =

  5. [13]

    Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks , volume =

    Heiser, Yannick and Pourahmadi, Farzaneh and Kazempour, Jalal , title =. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks , volume =

  6. [14]

    Applied Energy , volume =

    Ally, Stijn and Verstraeten, Timothy and Nowé, Ann and Helsen, Jan , title =. Applied Energy , volume =

  7. [15]

    IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , year =

    Johnsen, Andrea Gloppen and Mitridati, Lesia and Kazempour, Jalal and Roald, Line , title =. IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , year =

  8. [16]

    2025 , note =

    Solé Àvila, Marcel and Dominkovic, Dominik and Madsen, Henrik and Tsaousoglou, Georgios , title =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  9. [17]

    Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Future and Sustainable Energy Systems , pages =

    Bruninx, Max and Verstraeten, Timothy and Kazempour, Jalal and Helsen, Jan , title =. Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Future and Sustainable Energy Systems , pages =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , volume =

    Pinson, Pierre , title =. IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , volume =

  11. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , year =

    Aolaritei, Liviu and Bangoura, Boubacar and Bolognani, Saverio and Lanzetti, Nicolas and Dörfler, Florian , title =. IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation , year =

  12. [20]

    Tyrrell and Uryasev, Stanislav , title =

    Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell and Uryasev, Stanislav , title =. Journal of Risk , volume =

  13. [21]

    Computational Management Science , volume =

    Muñoz, Miguel Angel and Pinson, Pierre and Kazempour, Jalal , title =. Computational Management Science , volume =

  14. [22]

    European Journal of Operational Research , year =

    Sadana, Utsav and Chenreddy, Abhilash and Delage, Erick and Forel, Alexandre and Frejinger, Emma and Vidal, Thibaut , title =. European Journal of Operational Research , year =

  15. [23]

    , title =

    Pinson, Pierre and Chevallier, Christophe and Kariniotakis, George N. , title =. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume =

  16. [24]

    IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , volume =

    Dai, Ting and Qiao, Wei , title =. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , volume =

  17. [25]

    and Conejo, Antonio J

    Morales, Juan M. and Conejo, Antonio J. and Pérez-Ruiz, Juan , title =. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume =

  18. [26]

    2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pages =

    Xiao, Dongliang and Qiao, Wei and Qu, Liyan , title =. 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pages =

    2018

  19. [27]

    Computers and Chemical Engineering , volume =

    Raheli, Enrica and Werner, Yannick and Kazempour, Jalal , title =. Computers and Chemical Engineering , volume =

  20. [28]

    and Grigas, Paul , title =

    Elmachtoub, Adam N. and Grigas, Paul , title =. Management Science , volume =. 2022 , eprint =

    2022

  21. [29]

    2026 , howpublished =

    Heiser, Yannick , title =. 2026 , howpublished =

    2026

  22. [30]

    The European Hydrogen Backbone , howpublished =

    EHB , year =. The European Hydrogen Backbone , howpublished =

  23. [31]

    Memo Algorithm description - Nordic mFRR EAM bid selection , howpublished =

    Energinet , year =. Memo Algorithm description - Nordic mFRR EAM bid selection , howpublished =

  24. [32]

    , journal=

    Baringo, Luis and Conejo, Antonio J. , journal=. Offering Strategy of Wind-Power Producer: A Multi-Stage Risk-Constrained Approach , year=

  25. [33]

    and Weatherill, J

    Bathurst, G.N. and Weatherill, J. and Strbac, G. , journal=. Trading wind generation in short term energy markets , year=

  26. [34]

    Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision , title=

    Bonneel, Nicolas and Rabin, Julien and Peyr. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision , title=. 2015 , volume=

    2015

  27. [35]

    Computational Optimal Transport , year =

    Peyr\'. Computational Optimal Transport , year =. Found. Trends Mach. Learn. , month = feb, pages =

  28. [36]

    Decision No 18/2020 on the Harmonisation of the Main Features of Imbalance Settlement , 2020

    ACER . Decision No 18/2020 on the Harmonisation of the Main Features of Imbalance Settlement , 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    ACER's Monitoring Shows Broad Implementation of the Electricity Imbalance Settlement Harmonisation Methodology Across the EU , 2024

    ACER . ACER's Monitoring Shows Broad Implementation of the Electricity Imbalance Settlement Harmonisation Methodology Across the EU , 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Hedging against Black Swans in Day-Ahead Energy Markets

    Liviu Aolaritei, Boubacar Bangoura, Saverio Bolognani, Nicolas Lanzetti, and Florian Dörfler. Hedging against Black Swans in Day-Ahead Energy Markets . IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    M. S. Avila, D. Dominkovic, H. Madsen, and G. Tsaousoglou. Multistage electricity market participation strategies under uncertainty for power-to-x plants, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Algorithmic bidding for virtual trading in electricity markets

    Sevi Baltaoglu, Lang Tong, and Qing Zhao. Algorithmic bidding for virtual trading in electricity markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34 0 (1): 0 535--543, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Luis Baringo and Antonio J. Conejo. Offering strategy of wind-power producer: A multi-stage risk-constrained approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31 0 (2): 0 1420--1429, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Bathurst, J

    G.N. Bathurst, J. Weatherill, and G. Strbac. Trading wind generation in short term energy markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 17 0 (3): 0 782--789, 2002

    2002

  35. [43]

    From predictive to prescriptive analytics

    Dimitris Bertsimas and Nathan Kallus. From predictive to prescriptive analytics. Management Science, 66 0 (3): 0 1025--1044, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Sliced and Radon Wasserstein barycenters of measures

    Nicolas Bonneel, Julien Rabin, Gabriel Peyr \'e , and Hanspeter Pfister. Sliced and Radon Wasserstein barycenters of measures. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 51 0 (1): 0 22--45, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Risk constrained trading strategies for stochastic generation with a single-price balancing market

    Jethro Browell. Risk constrained trading strategies for stochastic generation with a single-price balancing market. Energies, 11 0 (6): 0 1345, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Day-ahead bidding strategies for wind farm operators under a one-price balancing scheme

    Max Bruninx, Timothy Verstraeten, Jalal Kazempour, and Jan Helsen. Day-ahead bidding strategies for wind farm operators under a one-price balancing scheme. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Future and Sustainable Energy Systems, E-Energy '25, pages 719...

    2025

  39. [47]

    predict, then optimize

    Adam N. Elmachtoub and Paul Grigas. Smart “predict, then optimize”. Management Science, 68 0 (1): 0 9--26, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Memo algorithm description - nordic mfrr eam bid selection

    Energinet. Memo algorithm description - nordic mfrr eam bid selection. https://nordicbalancingmodel.net/, 2026

    2026

  41. [49]

    day\_ahead\_v2 : Source code

    Yannick Heiser. day\_ahead\_v2 : Source code. https://github.com/yahei-DTU/day_ahead_v2, 2026

    2026

  42. [50]

    Betting vs

    Yannick Heiser, Farzaneh Pourahmadi, and Jalal Kazempour. Betting vs. trading: Learning a linear decision policy for selling wind power and hydrogen. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 43: 0 101848, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    William W. Hogan. Virtual bidding and electricity market design. The Electricity Journal, 29 0 (5): 0 33--47, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Caroline A. Hopkins. Convergence bids and market manipulation in the california electricity market. Energy Economics, 89: 0 104818, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Isemonger

    Alan G. Isemonger. The benefits and risks of virtual bidding in multi-settlement markets. The Electricity Journal, 19 0 (9): 0 26--36, 2006

    2006

  46. [54]

    Akshaya Jha and Frank A. Wolak. Can forward commodity markets improve spot market performance? evidence from wholesale electricity. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 15 0 (2): 0 292--330, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Ledgerwood and Johannes P

    Shaun D. Ledgerwood and Johannes P. Pfeifenberger. Using virtual bids to manipulate the value of financial transmission rights. The Electricity Journal, 26 0 (9): 0 9--25, 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    Machine learning-driven virtual bidding with electricity market efficiency analysis

    Yinglun Li, Nanpeng Yu, and Wei Wang. Machine learning-driven virtual bidding with electricity market efficiency analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 37 0 (1): 0 354--364, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Morales, Antonio J

    Juan M. Morales, Antonio J. Conejo, and Juan Pérez-Ruiz. Short-term trading for a wind power producer. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25 0 (1): 0 554--564, 2010

    2010

  50. [58]

    Parsons, Cathleen Colbert, Jeremy Larrieu, Taylor Martin, and Erin Mastrangelo

    John E. Parsons, Cathleen Colbert, Jeremy Larrieu, Taylor Martin, and Erin Mastrangelo. Financial arbitrage and efficient dispatch in wholesale electricity markets. Technical Report CEEPR WP 2015-002, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    Computational optimal transport

    Gabriel Peyr\' e and Marco Cuturi. Computational optimal transport. Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 11 0 (5–6): 0 355–607, February 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Distributionally Robust Trading Strategies for Renewable Energy Producers

    Pierre Pinson. Distributionally Robust Trading Strategies for Renewable Energy Producers . IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation, 1 0 (1): 0 37--47, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Kariniotakis

    Pierre Pinson, Christophe Chevallier, and George N. Kariniotakis. Trading wind generation from short-term probabilistic forecasts of wind power. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22 0 (3): 0 1148--1156, 2007

    2007

  54. [62]

    A conic model for electrolyzer scheduling

    Enrica Raheli, Yannick Werner, and Jalal Kazempour. A conic model for electrolyzer scheduling . Computers and Chemical Engineering, 179, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Tyrrell Rockafellar and Stanislav Uryasev

    R. Tyrrell Rockafellar and Stanislav Uryasev. Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Risk, 3: 0 21--41, 2000

    2000

  56. [64]

    A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision-making under uncertainty

    Utsav Sadana, Abhilash Chenreddy, Erick Delage, Alexandre Forel, Emma Frejinger, and Thibaut Vidal. A survey of contextual optimization methods for decision-making under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 320 0 (2): 0 271--289, 2025

    2025

  57. [65]

    Risk-constrained stochastic virtual bidding in two-settlement electricity markets

    Dongliang Xiao, Wei Qiao, and Liyan Qu. Risk-constrained stochastic virtual bidding in two-settlement electricity markets. In 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pages 1--5, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.