Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 80 references

PP-LEM: Efficient and Privacy-Preserving Clearance Mechanism for Local Energy Markets

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A local energy market can be cleared in seconds with encrypted bids, prices, and profiles while preserving plaintext social welfare.

desk verdict Neat Paillier-compatible Stackelberg redesign, but the encrypted protocol is undefined for real-valued inputs, so the central welfare-preservation claim needs a fixed-point encoding and a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17758 v1 pith:Y3ZKDAYA submitted 2024-11-26 cs.GT cs.CR

Kamil Erdayandi , Mustafa Asan Mustafa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.CR
keywords PrivacyGametheoryPeer-to-peerenergytradingStackelbergHomomorphicencryptionLocalmarketsComputationalefficiencySocialwelfare
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

PP-LEM sets out to show that a local peer-to-peer electricity market can be cleared in the order of seconds for 200 households while keeping sellers' prices, buyers' demand amounts, and buyer profile parameters encrypted. The clearance mechanism is a competitive Stackelberg game in which sellers propose prices, buyers compute how much they would buy at those prices, and both sides iterate until supply matches demand. All buyer-side reaction and welfare calculations are carried out over encrypted data, using Paillier partial homomorphic encryption together with a square operation that avoids the cost of fully homomorphic encryption. The paper reports a 3.13 to 5.99 times runtime improvement over the authors' earlier PFET mechanism, with the aggregate financial balances of users unchanged. If the claim holds, privacy would no longer force a trade-off against settlement speed in local energy markets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the homomorphic evaluation of the quadratic welfare function without ever multiplying two ciphertexts. Paillier supports only addition and scalar multiplication, so the paper uses a square protocol adapted from a degree-2 evaluation scheme: for a secret $X$, the buyer produces $\alpha = \{-r^2 + 2rX\}$ and $\omega = \{X - r\}$ with a random $r$, and the seller reconstructs $X^2$ as $\mathsf{Dec}(\alpha) + \mathsf{Dec}(\omega)^2$. This lets buyers hide $X_{ji}$, $\lambda_i$, and $\theta_i$ while giving sellers exactly the welfare values the price-update rule needs. The square protocol carries the whole privacy-efficiency trade-off: all aggregation happens over ciphertexts, yet no fully homomorphic encryption is required.

What would settle it

Take one seller and two buyers with concrete values, for instance $\pi_j = 25$ euro cents, $\lambda_i = 40.1$, $\theta_i = 25$, run Algorithm 5 on encrypted prices and Algorithm 3 on plaintext prices, and compare the decrypted $W_{B_j}$ and $W_{Tot}$; if they differ beyond a stated rounding allowance, the encrypted market clears at different demands than the plaintext market, and the welfare-preservation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a competitive local energy market can be cleared privately and quickly without losing social welfare. The paper models the market as a single-leader multi-follower Stackelberg game: sellers choose prices, each buyer reacts with a linear demand $X_{ji} = (\lambda_i - \pi_j)/\theta_i$, and the welfare contributed by all buyers to seller $s_j$ is $W_{Bj} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_i \theta_i X_{ji}^2$. In the privacy-preserving variant, sellers encrypt their prices with a Paillier public key, buyers evaluate the demand and welfare formulas on ciphertexts, and the sellers decrypt only aggregated welfare values to update prices. The paper argues that because the encrypted pipeline performs the same operations as the plaintext algorithm, the equilibrium and the total user balances match those of PFET. The experiments back this with runtime measurements up to 200 users and profit-cost tables showing identical aggregate balances across PP-LEM and PFET.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the encrypted market producing exactly the same welfare numbers as the plaintext market, which requires a precise integer encoding for real-valued prices and profile parameters and correct handling of scaling when the square is reconstructed; the paper states neither of these explicitly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A local energy market with 200 participants can be cleared in seconds, comfortably inside the one-hour settlement cycle the model assumes.
  • Sellers' prices, buyers' per-seller demand volumes, and buyer profile parameters stay encrypted during the reaction computation, so a curious aggregator or seller does not see plaintext offers and bids.
  • Aggregate user balances under PP-LEM equal those under PFET, so moving to the privacy-preserving clearance mechanism does not reduce total social welfare.
  • Because the encrypted and plaintext algorithms have the same structure, the Nash-equilibrium existence argument for the plaintext game carries over to the encrypted market.
  • Quadratic welfare terms can be evaluated with partial homomorphic encryption plus a plaintext square after decryption, avoiding the overhead of fully homomorphic encryption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper supplied an explicit integer encoding for real-valued prices and profile parameters, the same square-protocol design would transfer to other quadratic utility markets, such as electric-vehicle charging or demand-flexibility auctions, without switching to fully homomorphic encryption.
  • The reported speedups assume parallel seller and buyer loops; at 200 users the per-iteration communication volume (one alpha and one omega ciphertext per buyer per seller) may become the practical bottleneck in a field deployment with real network latency.
  • The welfare-equality argument is stated for aggregate balances; the protocol makes sellers decrypt one omega value per buyer, so whether an individual buyer's welfare contribution can be inferred from those values is a separate privacy question the paper does not examine.
  • A natural next experiment is to vary $\lambda_i$ across buyers in the encrypted market and check whether the decrypted welfare still matches the plaintext formula when $\theta_i$ is not identical for everyone; the current simulations appear to use a single fixed $\theta$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. PP-LEM proposes a Stackelberg-game-based market-clearing mechanism for local energy markets, together with a Paillier-homomorphic-encryption variant (Algorithms 4 and 5) that is intended to compute buyer welfare over encrypted prices while keeping prices, demands, and buyer profile variables private. The paper claims improved computational efficiency relative to the authors' earlier PFET mechanism, market clearing for 200 users in the order of seconds, and no loss in social welfare or user balances. The evaluation includes a Nash-equilibrium existence argument, computational complexity and communication analysis, privacy proofs, and simulations on German household consumption and PVGIS solar data with and without batteries.

Significance. The design goal—competitive P2P clearance using only partially homomorphic operations plus an encrypted squaring gadget—is relevant and, if the encrypted computation were correct, would be a useful step toward scalable privacy-preserving local energy markets. The paper has concrete strengths: the data-generation pipeline is documented with a public repository, the simulations cover multiple seasons, battery configurations, and user counts, and the authors explicitly disclose limitations such as the omission of network costs. However, the correctness of the encrypted welfare computation is not established and, in the version under review, contains a concrete algebraic error. The welfare-preservation evidence is indirect, the Nash-equilibrium proof is incomplete, and the runtime tables do not support the abstract's 'order of seconds' claim for 200 users. These issues bear directly on all three parts of the central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3–4.4, Algorithms 4 and 5] The reconstruction of W_BJ is algebraically wrong. Theorem 1 reconstructs X^2 from Square({X}) as Dec(α)+Dec(ω)^2. In Algorithm 5, line 12 stores Enc(0.5·θ_i·α_ij) in AB_j and line 13 stores Enc(0.5·θ_i·ω_ij) in Ω_Bj; Algorithm 4, lines 21–24, then computes Dec(AB_j) + Σ_i Dec(0.5·θ_i·ω_ij)^2. With c = θ_i/2 this yields Σ_i [c(−r_i^2+2r_iX_ji) + c^2(X_ji−r_i)^2] = Σ_i [cX_ji^2 + c(c−1)(X_ji−r_i)^2], not Σ_i cX_ji^2. For θ=25, c=12.5, so the spurious second term is 143.75·(X_ji−r_i)^2 per buyer. Thus W_BJ, and consequently the demand D_j computed in Algorithm 4 line 31, is not the welfare defined in Eq. (10).
  2. [§4.2–4.4, Algorithm 5 lines 3–6, 12–13] Paillier encryption is defined over plaintexts in Z_n, but the protocol supplies real-valued inputs: λ_i=40.1, θ_i=25, the scalar θ_INV_i=1/25, the scalar 0.5, and real-valued prices. No fixed-point encoding, scaling factor, rounding rule, or modular-bound analysis is given. Paillier scalar multiplication is defined only for integer scalars, and Theorem 1 is proved only for integer X. Consequently, the statement in §4.2 that the decrypted outcome is 'consistent with what would have been achieved without any encryption' is unsupported. A concrete encoding with precision and overflow analysis is required; without it, the encrypted protocol does not provably compute Eq. (10) or the demand allocation in Algorithm 4.
  3. [§5.5.2, Table 5 and accompanying text] The claim that social welfare is uncompromised is not supported by the reported balances. Aggregate user balance cancels P2P payments between buyers and sellers, and the text itself notes that P2P transfers 'neutralise any differences when calculating overall balances.' Moreover, the balance tables do not report the welfare quantities W_Bj or W_Tot from Eq. (10). Equality of aggregate balances across PFET and PP-LEM is therefore at best a necessary condition; it cannot certify that the encrypted mechanism reproduces the plaintext allocation, prices, or buyer utilities. The authors should directly compare the encrypted and plaintext algorithms' outputs (W_Bj, W_Tot, allocations, prices) or provide a formal equivalence proof.
  4. [§5.2, Eq. (11)] The Nash-equilibrium existence proof is incomplete. It verifies only that the buyer's utility U_i is strictly concave in X_ji (Eq. (11)), but it does not define the sellers' payoff functions or verify their continuity and concavity in π_j over the compact interval [ρ_FiT, ρ_Sup]. The proof also asserts boundedness of X_ji without deriving explicit bounds; §4.1.2 gives only a lower-bound assumption on λ_i. Finally, the iterative price-update rule in Algorithm 2 lines 21–22, with clamping and fixed step η_1, is not connected to the best-response correspondence of a static game. The existence claim needs either a full fixed-point argument for both player types or a precise statement that only the buyers' subgame equilibrium is being established.
  5. [§5.5.2, Table 6, and Abstract] The abstract states that PP-LEM can clear the market for 200 users 'within the order of seconds.' Table 6 reports PP-LEM total runtimes of 519.95 s (25% prosumers), 1599.35 s (50% prosumers), and 1965.98 s (75% prosumers) at 200 users. The reported PFET/PP-LEM Cost ratios are computed from per-iteration averages, not from total clearance time. The units, the definition of clearance time, and the abstract's claim must be reconciled; as presented, the headline efficiency claim is not supported by the reported data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3] The complexity statement is loose: it refers to 'dual nested loops' and O(n^2) without defining n. Algorithm 5 has O(N_S·N_B) work plus O(N_S·N_B) aggregation; please state per-iteration and total complexity explicitly in terms of N_S and N_B.
  2. [§5.1] The privacy proofs are informal. For example, §5.1.3 says that tracing buyer variables from an aggregate result is 'as hard as breaking the underlying encryption scheme' without a formal reduction. A simulation-based or IND-CPA-based argument would be more convincing.
  3. [§3.4.2, Theorem 1] Theorem 1 assumes exact integer arithmetic, but Paillier decryption returns values modulo n. The proof should state bounds on r and X (or on their encoded representations) that prevent modular wrap-around, since the reconstruction formula fails if intermediate values are reduced modulo n.
  4. [§5.5.2, Table 6] The caption should clarify that 'Total' and 'Average' are in seconds and should state explicitly which phases are parallelized; the current text says sellers and buyers run in parallel, but the 'Total' row appears to include sequential aggregation, which affects interpretation of the efficiency comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'without compromising social welfare' claim rests on aggregate user balance, from which P2P transfers cancel by construction; the computational-efficiency result is measured and independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.5.2, 'Analysis of the costs, profits and balances', Table 5 discussion; same reasoning repeated as key finding 3 in Section 5.5.2 and in the Conclusion.]
    "Nevertheless, it is important to note that the overall financial balances of users – calculated by subtracting total costs from total profits – remains consistent across both markets. This consistency is attributed to the P2P clearance mechanisms specific to each market, which only impact the direct costs and profits associated with P2P transactions. The mechanism ensures that the profits earned by prosumers are balanced by the costs incurred by buyers, neutralising any differences when calculating overall balances."

    The 'All Users Balance' is total prosumer profit minus total buyer cost. Every P2P payment appears once as a buyer cost and once as an equal prosumer profit, so those terms cancel algebraically in the aggregate balance. Consequently, any two clearance mechanisms that differ only in P2P prices or internal allocations will show identical aggregate balances by construction. The paper nevertheless uses this identical balance as the evidence that PP-LEM 'does not compromise the total balances and total social welfare' relative to PFET. That inference is self-definitional: the chosen metric is definitionally insensitive to the very P2P transfer terms that differ between the two mechanisms. It does not measure the welfare function W_BJ of Eq.

full rationale

The paper's computational-efficiency claim is supported by direct runtime measurements against PFET, with code and data repositories cited; that part is independent and not circular. The Nash-equilibrium argument is a standard concavity/strategy-set argument and does not import its conclusion. The main circular step is the social-welfare comparison: the conclusion that PP-LEM preserves social welfare is based on aggregate user balances, a quantity from which peer-to-peer transfers cancel by construction, as the paper itself states. Because the equality of balances between PFET and PP-LEM is forced by the definition of the metric, it cannot support the claim that actual buyer welfare, as defined in Eq. (10), is uncompromised. I also considered the unstated fixed-point encoding for real-valued inputs under Paillier encryption; that is a correctness gap in the encrypted-protocol equivalence, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score further. The self-citations to the authors' prior PFET work are used as a benchmark and are not load-bearing in a circular way. Overall, the welfare half of the central claim reduces to an accounting identity while the efficiency half retains independent content, giving a partial-circularity score of 6.

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

The central claims rest on a standard cryptographic assumption, a parametric utility model, an unstated real-to-integer encoding for Paillier plaintexts, and an unproved convergence assumption for the iterative price update. The simulation parameters lambda, theta, eta1, eta2, and epsilon are chosen by hand and affect the numerical results, though the efficiency claim likely does not depend on their exact values.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_i (buyer profile variable) = 40.1
    Chosen by hand as a single value for all buyers in the simulation parameters. It sets the intercept of the linear demand reaction function X_ji = (lambda_i - pi_j)/theta_i, so it directly determines traded quantities and welfare values.
  • theta (curvature parameter) = 25
    Taken as a constant from reference [66] and used in the quadratic utility function U_i = lambda_i * x - theta_i/2 * x^2. Its value affects the slope of demand and the welfare numbers reported in the tables.
  • eta1 (seller price adjustment step) = 3
    Chosen in the simulation parameters to update prices as pi_j <- pi_j + eta1 * (D_j - S_j^P2P). It controls convergence speed and final equilibrium prices and is not derived from first principles.
  • eta2 (PFET state update step) = 0.0001
    Listed as a step size used only for the PFET baseline. Its arbitrary value affects the PFET runtime comparison.
  • epsilon (stopping threshold) = 0.05 (stated in text, not in the parameter list)
    The iteration stops when |D_j - S_j| is below this value. The threshold is chosen by hand in the experimental discussion and influences the number of iterations and therefore the runtime.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Paillier cryptosystem is CPA-secure and its plaintext domain is Z_n
    The privacy proofs in Section 5.1 rely entirely on the CPA security of Paillier [65]. This is a standard cryptographic assumption but is not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption All sensitive values, including prices, lambda_i, theta_i, and quantities, are representable as integers modulo n with no precision loss
    Algorithms 4 and 5 perform operations over encrypted data, but prices such as 28 euro cents and lambda = 40.1 are real-valued. The paper never defines an integer encoding, scaling, rounding, or modular arithmetic handling, so exact correctness of the encrypted protocol is assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption Communication channels are secure and authentic, smart meters are tamper-proof, and users are honest-but-curious
    Stated in Section 3.2 as the threat model and assumptions. These are standard but unverified assumptions on which the privacy guarantees depend.
  • domain assumption Buyer utility is quadratic and demand follows X_ji = (lambda_i - pi_j)/theta_i with lambda_i greater than the maximum retail price
    Equation (9) follows from differentiating the quadratic utility (7), but the functional form and the constraint lambda_i > rho_sup are asserted rather than derived from market data.
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative price update with fixed step eta1 converges to the market equilibrium
    Section 5.2 proves only that a Nash equilibrium exists under concavity, not that Algorithms 2 and 4 converge to it. The simulations rely on an unproved step-size choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PP-LEM: Efficient and Privacy-Preserving Clearance Mechanism for Local Energy Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3ZKDAYA

@misc{pith2026241117758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PP-LEM: Efficient and Privacy-Preserving Clearance Mechanism for Local Energy Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3ZKDAYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17758}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a novel Privacy-Preserving clearance mechanism for Local Energy Markets (PP-LEM), designed for computational efficiency and social welfare. PP-LEM incorporates a novel competitive game-theoretical clearance mechanism, modelled as a Stackelberg Game. Based on this mechanism, a privacy-preserving market model is developed using a partially homomorphic cryptosystem, allowing buyers' reaction function calculations to be executed over encrypted data without exposing sensitive information of both buyers and sellers. The comprehensive performance evaluation demonstrates that PP-LEM is highly effective in delivering an incentive clearance mechanism with computational efficiency, enabling it to clear the market for 200 users within the order of seconds while concurrently protecting user privacy. Compared to the state of the art, PP-LEM achieves improved computational efficiency without compromising social welfare while still providing user privacy protection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model and iterations. Interactions in circles: 1) Proposal of prices by prosumers. 2) Transfer of prices from prosumers to consumers. 3) Calculation of strategies by consumers. 4) Transfer of reactions of consumers to prosumers. authority. Although simulations demonstrate the efficacy of PFET for local communities with up to 100 users, scalability remains a challenge. Addressing this scalability issue, our ap… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Monthly total PV electricity generation in 2016 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Monthly total electricity consumption of households in 2016. and CdTe), all of which had their parameters specified as mentioned earlier. The generated time-series data can be found in our repository,6 with hourly data available for each day of 2016. We utilise the three time-series, created using a PVGIS tool, to generate energy production data for 150 prosumers. This is achieved with an expansion process by random… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The monthly ratio between total photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation and total electricity consumption of households in 2016 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Household electricity consumption and PV generation on November 6th, 2016. demand after 6 pm. Regrettably, this excess energy goes wasted, as it remains unused for the immediate energy consumption needs in the period following 6 pm. This inefficiency underscores a crit…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation results on 21st April for PFET [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulation results on 21st April for PP-LEM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    De La Peña, R

    L. De La Peña, R. Guo, X. Cao, X. Ni, W. Zhang, Accelerating the energy transition to achieve carbon neutrality, Resour. Conserv. Recy. 177 (2022) 105957

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Accelerating the transition from fossil fuels and securing energy supplies, 2023, URL https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmenvaud/ 109/report.html, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Statistical review of world energy, 2023, URL https://www.energyinst.org/ statistical-review, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Jurasz, F

    J. Jurasz, F. Canales, A. Kies, M. Guezgouz, A. Beluco, A review on the complementarity of renewable energy sources: Concept, metrics, application and future research directions, Sol. Energy 195 (2020) 703–724

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Infield, L

    D. Infield, L. Freris, Renewable Energy in Power Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Liang, Emerging power quality challenges due to integration of renewable energy sources, IEEE Trans

    X. Liang, Emerging power quality challenges due to integration of renewable energy sources, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 53 (2) (2016) 855–866

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/feed-tariffs-fit/tariffs-and-payments, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    Ofgem, Feed-in tariffs (fit) - payments and tariffs, 2023, URL https://www.ofgem. gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/feed-tariffs-fit/tariffs-and-payments, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Privacy-Friendly Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading: A Game Theoretical Approach

    K. Erdayandi, A. Paudel, L. Cordeiro, M.A. Mustafa, Privacy-friendly peer-to- peer energy trading: A game theoretical approach, 2022, pp. 1–5, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01810

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Erdayandi, L.C

    K. Erdayandi, L.C. Cordeiro, M.A. Mustafa, Towards privacy preserving local energy markets, in: Competitive Advantage in the Digital Economy (CADE 2022): Resilience, Sustainability, Responsibility, and Identity, IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  2. [10]

    Capper, A

    T. Capper, A. Gorbatcheva, M.A. Mustafa, M. Bahloul, J.M. Schwidtal, R. Chitchyan, M. Andoni, V. Robu, M. Montakhabi, I.J. Scott, et al., Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models, Renew. Sust...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hvelplund, Renewable energy and the need for local energy markets, Energy 31 (13) (2006) 2293–2302

    F. Hvelplund, Renewable energy and the need for local energy markets, Energy 31 (13) (2006) 2293–2302

    2006

  4. [12]

    Mengelkamp, B

    E. Mengelkamp, B. Notheisen, C. Beer, D. Dauer, C. Weinhardt, A blockchain- based smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets, Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 33 (2018) 207–214

    2018

  5. [13]

    Farhangi, The path of the smart grid, IEEE Power Energy Mag

    H. Farhangi, The path of the smart grid, IEEE Power Energy Mag. 8 (1) (2009) 18–28

    2009

  6. [14]

    Kabalci, A survey on smart metering and smart grid communication, Renew

    Y. Kabalci, A survey on smart metering and smart grid communication, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57 (2016) 302–318

    2016

  7. [15]

    Alqahtani, M.A

    E. Alqahtani, M.A. Mustafa, Privacy-preserving local energy markets: A systematic literature review, 2023, Available at SSRN 4483407

    2023

  8. [16]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. Masud, M.S. Hossain, A. Kaur, Blockchain and homomorphic encryption-based privacy-preserving data aggregation model in smart grid, Comput. Electr. Eng. 93 (2021) 107209

    2021

  9. [17]

    Mustafa, S

    M.A. Mustafa, S. Cleemput, A. Abidin, A local electricity trading market: Security analysis, in: 2016 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  10. [18]

    Kalogridis, M

    G. Kalogridis, M. Sooriyabandara, Z. Fan, M.A. Mustafa, Toward unified security and privacy protection for smart meter networks, IEEE Syst. J. 8 (2) (2013) 641–654

    2013

  11. [19]

    Thandi, M.A

    R. Thandi, M.A. Mustafa, Privacy-enhancing settlements protocol in peer-to-peer energy trading markets, in: 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference, ISGT, IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  12. [20]

    Quinn, Privacy and the new energy infrastructure, 2009, Available at SSRN 1370731

    E.L. Quinn, Privacy and the new energy infrastructure, 2009, Available at SSRN 1370731

    2009

  13. [21]

    Jawurek, F

    M. Jawurek, F. Kerschbaum, G. Danezis, Sok: Privacy technologies for smart grids–a survey of options, Microsoft Res., Cambridge, UK 1 (2012) 1–16

    2012

  14. [22]

    Montakhabi, A

    M. Montakhabi, A. Madhusudan, S. Van Der Graaf, A. Abidin, P. Ballon, M.A. Mustafa, Sharing economy in future peer-to-peer electricity trading markets: Security and privacy analysis, in: Proc. of Workshop on Decentralized IoT Systems, 2020, pp. 1–6. Sustainable Energy, Grids a...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Regulation (EU) 2016 - general data protection regulation, 2016, URL https: //eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Jastaniah, N

    K. Jastaniah, N. Zhang, M.A. Mustafa, Efficient privacy-friendly and flexible IoT data aggregation with user-centric access control, 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00465

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. Xie, H. Wang, Y. Hong, M. Thai, Privacy preserving distributed energy trading, 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12216

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Siano, Demand response and smart grids—A survey, Renew

    P. Siano, Demand response and smart grids—A survey, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 461–478

    2014

  19. [27]

    Gubbi, R

    J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, M. Palaniswami, Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions, Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29 (7) (2013) 1645–1660

    2013

  20. [28]

    Erdayandi, L.C

    K. Erdayandi, L.C. Cordeiro, M.A. Mustafa, A privacy-preserving and accountable billing protocol for peer-to-peer energy trading markets, in: 2023 International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies, SEST, IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  21. [29]

    Tushar, T.K

    W. Tushar, T.K. Saha, C. Yuen, D. Smith, H.V. Poor, Peer-to-peer trading in electricity networks: an overview, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Hutu, M.A

    A. Hutu, M.A. Mustafa, Privacy preserving billing in local energy markets with imperfect bid-offer fulfillment, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (Smart- GridComm), 2023, pp. 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2023

  23. [31]

    Alqahtani, M.A

    E. Alqahtani, M.A. Mustafa, Zone-based privacy-preserving billing for local energy market based on multiparty computation, in: 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm), 2023, pp. 1–7, http://dx....

    2023

  24. [32]

    Abidin, R

    A. Abidin, R. Callaerts, G. Deconinck, S. Van Der Graaf, A. Madhusudan, M. Montakhabi, M.A. Mustafa, S. Nikova, D. Orlando, J. Schroers, et al., Poster: SNIPPET—Secure and privacy-friendly peer-to-peer electricity trading, in: Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System ...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Zhou, S. Li, K. Xue, H. Yue, Privacy-preserving power request and trading by prepayment in smart grid, in: 2017 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China, ICCC, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  26. [34]

    S. Li, X. Zhang, K. Xue, L. Zhou, H. Yue, Privacy-preserving prepayment based power request and trading in smart grid, China Commun. 15 (4) (2018) 14–27

    2018

  27. [35]

    D. Li, Q. Yang, D. An, W. Yu, X. Yang, X. Fu, On location privacy-preserving online double auction for electric vehicles in microgrids, IEEE Internet Things J. 6 (4) (2018) 5902–5915

    2018

  28. [36]

    Sarenche, M

    R. Sarenche, M. Salmasizadeh, M.H. Ameri, M.R. Aref, A secure and privacy- preserving protocol for holding double auctions in smart grid, Inform. Sci. 557 (2021) 108–129

    2021

  29. [37]

    D. Li, Q. Yang, W. Yu, D. An, X. Yang, W. Zhao, A strategy-proof privacy- preserving double auction mechanism for electrical vehicles demand response in microgrids, in: 2017 IEEE 36th International Performance Computing and Communications Conference, IPCCC, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  30. [38]

    Q. Yang, D. Li, D. An, W. Yu, X. Fu, X. Yang, W. Zhao, Towards incentive for electrical vehicles demand response with location privacy guaranteeing in microgrids, IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 19 (1) (2020) 131–148

    2020

  31. [39]

    Bevin, A

    K. Bevin, A. Verma, Privacy preserving double auction using secure multiparty computation for local electricity markets, in: 2023 10th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE, IEEE, 2023, pp. 271–276

    2023

  32. [40]

    Abidin, A

    A. Abidin, A. Aly, S. Cleemput, M.A. Mustafa, An MPC-based privacy-preserving protocol for a local electricity trading market, in: International Conference on Cryptology and Network Security, Springer, 2016, pp. 615–625

    2016

  33. [41]

    Zobiri, M

    F. Zobiri, M. Gama, S. Nikova, G. Deconinck, A privacy-preserving three-step demand response market using multi-party computation, in: 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference, ISGT, IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zobiri, M

    F. Zobiri, M. Botelho da Gama, S. Petkova-Nikova, G. Deconinck, M. Gama, S. Nikova, A privacy-preserving peer-to-peer market using demand response and multi-party computation, in: CIGRE 2022 Kyoto Symposium, Japan, Cigre, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    B. Wang, L. Xu, J. Wang, A privacy-preserving trading strategy for blockchain-based P2P electricity transactions, Appl. Energy 335 (2023) 120664

    2023

  36. [44]

    D. Li, Q. Yang, W. Yu, D. An, Y. Zhang, W. Zhao, Towards differential privacy- based online double auction for smart grid, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 15 (2019) 971–986

    2019

  37. [45]

    S. Yu, Z. Wei, G. Sun, Y. Zhou, H. Zang, A double auction mechanism for virtual power plants based on blockchain sharding consensus and privacy preservation, J. Clean. Prod. 436 (2024) 140285

    2024

  38. [46]

    Hassan, M.H

    M.U. Hassan, M.H. Rehmani, J. Chen, DEAL: Differentially private auction for blockchain-based microgrids energy trading, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 13 (2) (2019) 263–275

    2019

  39. [47]

    Hoseinpour, M

    M. Hoseinpour, M. Hoseinpour, M. Haghifam, M.-R. Haghifam, Privacy- preserving and approximately truthful local electricity markets: A differentially private VCG mechanism, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    C. Li, A. He, Y. Wen, G. Liu, A.T. Chronopoulos, Optimal trading mechanism based on differential privacy protection and stackelberg game in big data market, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Y. Xia, Q. Xu, Y. Huang, Y. Liu, F. Li, Preserving privacy in nested peer-to-peer energy trading in networked microgrids considering incomplete rationality, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 14 (1) (2022) 606–622

    2022

  42. [50]

    Jawurek, M

    M. Jawurek, M. Johns, K. Rieck, Smart metering de-pseudonymization, in: ACSAC, 2011, pp. 227–236

    2011

  43. [51]

    B. Liu, S. Xie, Y. Hong, PANDA: Privacy-aware double auction for divisible resources without a mediator, in: 19th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2020, pp. 1904–1906

    2020

  44. [52]

    Englmaier, P

    F. Englmaier, P. Guillen, L. Llorente, S. Onderstal, R. Sausgruber, The chopstick auction: a study of the exposure problem in multi-unit auctions, Int. J. Ind. Organ. 27 (2) (2009) 286–291

    2009

  45. [53]

    A. Lutovac, et al., Maximal payoff strategy for vickery auction using game theory and computer algebra systems, in: Sinteza 2014-Impact of the Internet on Business Activities in Serbia and Worldwide, Singidunum University, 2014, pp. 66–70

    2014

  46. [54]

    Parsons, J.A

    S. Parsons, J.A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, M. Klein, Auctions and bidding: A guide for computer scientists, ACM Comput. Surv. 43 (2) (2011) 1–59

    2011

  47. [55]

    W. Ren, X. Tong, J. Du, N. Wang, S. Li, G. Min, Z. Zhao, Privacy enhancing techniques in the internet of things using data anonymisation, Inf. Syst. Front. (2021) 1–12

    2021

  48. [56]

    Chaum, I.B

    D. Chaum, I.B. Damgård, J.v.d. Graaf, Multiparty computations ensuring privacy of each party’s input and correctness of the result, in: Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, Springer, 1987, pp. 87–119

    1987

  49. [57]

    Dwork, A

    C. Dwork, A. Roth, et al., The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy, Found. Trends Theoret. Comput. Sci. 9 (3–4) (2014) 211–407

    2014

  50. [58]

    X. Yi, R. Paulet, E. Bertino, X. Yi, R. Paulet, E. Bertino, Homomorphic Encryption, Springer, 2014

    2014

  51. [59]

    Liang, S

    S. Liang, S. Lu, J. Lin, Z. Wang, Low-latency hardware accelerator for improved engle-granger cointegration in pairs trading, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I. Regul. Pap. 68 (7) (2021) 2911–2924

    2021

  52. [60]

    Lockwood, A

    J.W. Lockwood, A. Gupte, N. Mehta, M. Blott, T. English, K. Vissers, A low- latency library in FPGA hardware for high-frequency trading (HFT), in: 2012 IEEE 20th Annual Symposium on High-Performance Interconnects, IEEE, 2012, pp. 9–16

    2012

  53. [61]

    Malazgirt, B

    G.A. Malazgirt, B. Kiyan, D. Candas, K. Erdayandi, A. Yurdakul, Exploring em- bedded symmetric multiprocessing with various on-chip architectures, in: 2015 IEEE 13th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  54. [62]

    Aksehir, K

    Y. Aksehir, K. Erdayandi, T.Z. Ozcan, I. Hamzaoglu, A low energy adaptive motion estimation hardware for H. 264 multiview video coding, J. Real-Time Image Process. 15 (2018) 3–12

    2018

  55. [63]

    Abidin, A

    A. Abidin, A. Aly, S. Cleemput, M.A. Mustafa, Towards a local electricity trading market based on secure multiparty computation, 2016

    2016

  56. [64]

    Mustafa, N

    M.A. Mustafa, N. Zhang, G. Kalogridis, Z. Fan, DEP2SA: A decentralized efficient privacy-preserving and selective aggregation scheme in advanced metering infrastructure, IEEE Access 3 (2015) 2828–2846

    2015

  57. [65]

    P. Paillier, Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuos- ity classes, in: International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Springer, 1999, pp. 223–238

    1999

  58. [66]

    Paudel, K

    A. Paudel, K. Chaudhari, C. Long, H.B. Gooi, Peer-to-peer energy trading in a prosumer-based community microgrid: A game-theoretic model, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 66 (8) (2018) 6087–6097

    2018

  59. [67]

    Catalano, D

    D. Catalano, D. Fiore, Using linearly-homomorphic encryption to evaluate degree- 2 functions on encrypted data, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2015, pp. 1518–1529

    2015

  60. [68]

    Tushar, W

    W. Tushar, W. Saad, H.V. Poor, D.B. Smith, Economics of electric vehicle charging: A game theoretic approach, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 3 (4) (2012) 1767–1778

    2012

  61. [69]

    Y. Wang, W. Saad, Z. Han, H.V. Poor, T. Başar, A game-theoretic approach to energy trading in the smart grid, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5 (3) (2014) 1439–1450

    2014

  62. [70]

    Fraunhofer, Recent facts about photovoltaic in Germany, 2023, URL https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/ studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Germany raises feed-in tariffs for solar up to 750 kW, 2023, URL https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/07/07/germany-raises-feed-in-tariffs- for-solar-up-to-750-kw/, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics# Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers, (Accessed on 14/12/2023)

    Electricity prices for household consumers, 2023, URL https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics# Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers, (Accessed on 14/12/2023). Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 39 (2024) 101477...

    2024

  65. [73]

    Y. Yu, G. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Li, V2V energy trading in residential microgrids considering multiple constraints via Bayesian game, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Al-Sorour, M

    A. Al-Sorour, M. Fazeli, M. Monfared, A.A. Fahmy, Investigation of electric vehicles contributions in an optimized peer-to-peer energy trading system, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 12489–12503

    2023

  67. [75]

    Y. Xu, A. Alderete Peralta, N. Balta-Ozkan, Vehicle-to-vehicle energy trading framework: A systematic literature review, Sustainability 16 (12) (2024) 5020

    2024

  68. [76]

    Y. Wang, L. Yuan, W. Jiao, Y. Qiang, J. Zhao, Q. Yang, K. Li, A fast and secured vehicle-to-vehicle energy trading based on blockchain consensus in the internet of electric vehicles, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Sovacool, L

    B.K. Sovacool, L. Noel, J. Axsen, W. Kempton, The neglected social dimensions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review, Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (1) (2018) 013001

    2018

  70. [78]

    S. Vadi, R. Bayindir, A.M. Colak, E. Hossain, A review on communication standards and charging topologies of V2G and V2H operation strategies, Energies 12 (19) (2019) 3748

    2019

  71. [79]

    Cali, S.N.G

    U. Cali, S.N.G. Gourisetti, D.J. Sebastian-Cardenas, F.O. Catak, A. Lee, L.M. Zeger, T.S. Ustun, M.F. Dynge, S. Rao, J.E. Ramirez, Emerging technologies for privacy preservation in energy systems, in: European Interdisciplinary Cybersecurity Conference, 2024, pp. 163–170

    2024

  72. [80]

    Paudel, L

    A. Paudel, L. Sampath, J. Yang, H.B. Gooi, Peer-to-peer energy trading in smart grid considering power losses and network fees, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 11 (6) (2020) 4727–4737. Kamil Erdayandi is pursuing a Ph.D. in Computer Sci- ence at The University of Manchester. He holds a...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.