Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Budget-constrained Collaborative Renewable Energy Forecasting Market

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a bid-constrained spline LASSO market can set data prices, select features, and cut renewable forecast error by over 10%.

desk verdict A useful, incremental data-market mechanism for collaborative wind forecasting, with a genuinely broken truthfulness proof that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12367 v2 pith:4DZXWIVP submitted 2025-01-21 cs.LG

Carla Goncalves , Ricardo J. Bessa , Tiago Teixeira , Joao Vinagre This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords renewableenergyforecastingdatamarketsplineLASSOincentivemechanismfeatureselectionGEFCom2014windpowertruthfulness
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 aims to make decentralized renewable-energy data trading work by giving both buyers and sellers a say in price. Its proposal, the Spline LASSO bid-Constrained Market (SLCM), lets each data seller set a per-variable price and each buyer set a value function that maps forecast gain into willingness to pay; a market operator then runs a budget-constrained spline LASSO regression. The central claim is that this single optimization selects the most useful features, pays sellers their requested amounts, and charges buyers only what their value function accepts. On GEFCom2014 wind data, the paper reports average RMSE improvements above 10% compared with local forecasts, alongside revenue for sellers. A sympathetic reader would take away that monetary incentives plus a transparent linear model may be enough to unlock private data for forecasting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bid-constrained spline LASSO estimator: after B-spline transformation, each original variable becomes a group of coefficients, and the operator solves $\arg\min_{\Theta} L(y, \tilde{Z}\Theta) + \lambda\|\Theta\|_1$ subject to total seller revenue not exceeding the buyer's bid. Proposition 1 reduces this to alternating soft-thresholding plus a 0-1 knapsack problem that selects which priced feature groups enter the model. The Bid-Gain Table (BGT) then sets the final price as the smallest bid that maximizes gain while satisfying the buyer's value function, making the mechanism, in the paper's terms, simultaneously a feature selector, a payment rule, and a revenue allocator.

What would settle it

Run the SLCM mechanism on a dataset with one seller deliberately submitting noise-corrupted versions of their data while all bids and other data stay fixed; if the noisy submission ever yields the same or higher revenue (or lower buyer loss) than the truthful submission, the truthfulness property fails. The paper contains no such controlled comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a data/analytics market can solve the decentralized-data problem in renewable forecasting without a third party dictating prices. In SLCM, each seller posts a price per data variable, each buyer submits a value function linking forecast gain to willingness to pay, and the market operator solves a budget-constrained spline LASSO regression. That single optimization selects which variables enter the forecast, determines the buyer's payment as the smallest bid consistent with the value function, and distributes to sellers exactly their requested prices. The paper reports that on GEFCom2014 wind data the collaborative forecasts cut RMSE by more than 10% on average versus local models, while sellers earn revenue from data that would otherwise stay private. It also claims market properties: budget balance, individual rationality, zero-element, truthfulness, and robustness to replication.

Load-bearing premise

The market's fairness and efficiency rest on sellers reporting their true data and bids; the paper's Appendix Proposition 3 attempts to prove truthfulness but its argument assumes that reporting true data cannot increase the loss, so honesty is not independently established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In budget-limited settings the mechanism selects the most relevant features first, so a buyer with a small budget still gets proportionally large forecast gains.
  • Sellers with redundant or weakly relevant data earn nothing, which pushes the market toward genuinely informative data.
  • Because payments equal total revenue and each seller is paid the bid price for used features, the market clears without a central price-setting authority.
  • The spline-LASSO formulation is computationally light enough for repeated day-ahead sessions (around 93 seconds per task in the case study), unlike Shapley-based markets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's wind case, the same bid-constrained spline-LASSO market could price data for solar, load, or EV-charging forecasts, since the objective is a generic regression with spatial-temporal features.
  • The market assumes a trusted operator with full data access; replacing that with privacy-preserving aggregation is left implicit and would require a different mechanism.
  • The shape of the buyer's value function materially changes allocation; comparing concave versus linear value functions across more buyers would test whether diminishing-marginal-utility bidding actually improves allocative efficiency.
  • Under the proposed bidding rules, sellers are paid only when selected; a natural test is whether allowing sellers to learn from past gains and adjust bids leads to strategic cycling.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data/analytics market for collaborative renewable-energy forecasting in which sellers post per-feature prices, buyers express willingness to pay through a value function, and a market operator solves a bid-constrained B-spline LASSO regression to select features, determine payments, and allocate seller revenues. The main claimed contributions are a flexible two-sided bidding mechanism, an interpretable spline LASSO model with automatic feature selection, and an incentive mechanism that is said to be truthful. The paper validates the approach on synthetic data with known ground truth and on GEFCom2014 wind data, reporting average RMSE improvements above 10% relative to local models and favorable comparisons with two earlier market mechanisms.

Significance. If the incentive and efficiency claims were established, the mechanism would be a useful step toward practical data-sharing markets for energy forecasting, because it gives both buyers and sellers explicit price-setting power and replaces Shapley-based revenue allocation with a solvable knapsack-constrained regression. The paper has concrete strengths: the optimization core is adapted from a published cost-constrained regression method, the synthetic experiments have known ground truth that makes feature-selection behavior interpretable, the GEFCom2014 case study is a standard benchmark, and source code is provided. The numerical results suggest that spline LASSO is computationally cheaper than kernel ridge and gradient boosting while remaining competitive, and the budget-constrained allocation behaves sensibly in the synthetic experiments. However, the paper's central incentive-compatibility claim rests on a circular and mismatched proof, so the market's truthfulness property is not established. The efficiency proof in the appendix also has a reversed inequality, and the payment definition in Eq. (6) is not reconciled with the budget-balance implementation in Algorithm 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix, Proposition 3; Section III-E] The truthfulness proof is circular and does not engage with the mechanism's actual revenue rule. The proof assumes, in the sentence beginning 'Since the utility is non-decreasing in the loss function,' that reporting true data cannot reduce the buyer's loss, which is exactly the statement to be proven; the displayed inequality writes the same beta* on both sides and never compares L(beta*(Xi,X'_−i), yi) with L(beta*(X'_i,X'_−i), yi). Moreover, the proof's constraint sum_j s_j beta_j <= B has no counterpart in the paper's mechanism, whose budget constraint (9b) is sum_j r_j <= b_i with r_j defined by the group-indicator formula (11). Under (11), a seller's revenue depends only on whether its feature group is selected, not directly on the buyer's loss, so truthful data can leave revenue unchanged while a strategic noisy report can in principle change feature selection and increase revenue. Since Section III-E explicitly lists truthfulness as a property of the mechanism, this gap is load-bearing for the paper's central incentive-compatibility claim.
  2. [Appendix, Proposition 2] The Pareto-efficiency proof is not valid as written. It assumes that if beta* is not Pareto efficient then there exists feasible beta' with L(beta') > L(beta*) and Cost(beta') <= Cost(beta*), and then argues that this contradicts beta* minimizing L. Pareto efficiency requires ruling out feasible beta' with L(beta') < L(beta*) and Cost(beta') <= Cost(beta*); the inequality direction in the proof is reversed. The proposition may be true, but the stated argument does not establish it.
  3. [Eq. (6); Algorithm 4, line 38] The definition of the final price is ambiguous, and the two places where p_i is defined do not agree. Equation (6) defines p_i as the bid b that maximizes G(Lambda_i,b) subject to b <= VF(G(Lambda_i,b)), whereas Algorithm 4 line 38 sets p_i <- sum_j r_j and the text states that budget balance means p_i = sum_j r_j. If p_i is the chosen budget b, then budget balance holds only if the selected set exhausts the budget, which the knapsack solution (13) does not guarantee; if p_i is the sum of winning bids, then Eq. (6) is not the payment equation. Please disambiguate the notation and state explicitly which object is the buyer's payment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-C, Table V] The payments, revenues, and gains in Table V are reported as single cumulative numbers without confidence intervals or repeated-simulation variability, so statements such as 'average RMSE improvement of over 10%' are not accompanied by uncertainty quantification.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 13] The line 'w<-pi' uses an undefined or conflicting variable; the backtracking loop needs the remaining capacity, not the final price p_i.
  3. [Section III-E, robustness-to-replication bullet] The stated implication 'rj + rj' <= rj' is inconsistent with the preceding sentence that LASSO selects one of Xj and Xj'; presumably the intended statement is about the sum of payments for the two similar features not exceeding the payment for the selected feature.
  4. [Appendix heading] The heading 'Truthfullness' is misspelled and should be 'Truthfulness'.
  5. [Fig. 7(a)] The axis labels 'P1P2 P3 =P4' are unreadable; please typeset the value functions as P1, P2, P3, and P4.
  6. [Table II] The 'others' row uses '<0.99' and '<3.00' without stating whether these are sums or per-feature maximum values; please clarify the aggregation convention.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Truthfulness proof in Appendix Prop. 3 assumes the conclusion it must prove; market incentive compatibility is circular, while forecasting results remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Appendix, Proposition 3 (Truthfullness), proof]
    "Since the utility is non-decreasing in the loss function, ui(β∗1(Xi,X′−i),...,β∗N(Xi,X′−i))≥ ui(β∗1(Xi,X′−i),...,β∗N(X′i,X′−i))."

    The proposition claims truthful reporting Xi yields at least as much seller utility as false reporting X′i. The displayed inequality is exactly that claim, asserted without derivation from the optimization. No step shows L(β*(Xi,X′−i),yi) ≤ L(β*(X′i,X′−i),yi), nor that a lower buyer loss implies larger revenue rj. Under the actual mechanism (Eq. 11), rj is a sum of seller bids triggered by feature-group selection, not a function of buyer loss. Thus the proof assumes the conclusion and the mechanism's truthfulness/incentive-compatibility property is unproven.

  2. renaming known result [Appendix, Proposition 2 (Pareto Efficiency), proof]
    "Assume β∗ is the solution of (21) and it is not Pareto efficient. Then ∃β′ ∈ {β : Cost(β) ≤ VF(G(L(β)))} such that: L(β′) > L(β∗) and Cost(β′) ≤ Cost(β∗). Since β∗ minimizes L(β), this contradicts β∗ being the minimizer because β′ has a lower loss."

    Pareto efficiency is concluded directly from constrained optimality: a solution of (21) has no feasible alternative with lower loss by construction of the minimization. The proof therefore renames the optimization objective as Pareto efficiency rather than proving a market-design property. The written inequality is also inverted (a non-Pareto alternative should have lower loss), so the argument is at best a restatement of the definition of the constrained minimizer.

full rationale

The core forecasting derivation is not circular: spline LASSO coefficients are fit on training data, gains are estimated on validation/historical-similarity data, and the final price is chosen by comparing estimated gain with the buyer value function; the reported RMSE improvements are out-of-sample comparisons against local models. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present (Proposition 1 cites an external result [29], and benchmarks [10],[11] are comparisons, not premises). However, the Appendix's Proposition 3 is circular: it asserts the truthfulness inequality instead of proving it and never connects buyer loss to seller revenue as defined in Eq. (11). Since Section III-E lists truthfulness as a property of the mechanism and the paper advertises an incentive-compatible market, this is a central unproved claim. Proposition 2 is a definitional restatement of constrained optimality as Pareto efficiency. Hyperparameter tuning on validation folds may bias BGT gain estimates but is a selection-bias issue, not an equivalence-by-construction. Overall, the empirical content is self-contained, but the incentive-theoretic claim is partially circular, giving score 6.

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

The central mechanism depends on a handful of tuned hyperparameters and on strong assumptions about trust, stationarity, and gain estimation. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated; the Bid-Gain Table is an algorithmic structure, not an invented entity.

free parameters (5)
  • B-spline degree D = grid-searched within {1,...,7}
    Tuned per buyer bid and per zone/fold in Algorithm 3 using validation loss.
  • Number of knots K = grid-searched within {3,...,30}
    Tuned with D and lambda; affects the spline basis expansion and feature grouping.
  • LASSO regularization lambda = grid-searched within [10^-3, 100]
    Tuned by cross-validation; controls sparsity and interacts with budget constraints.
  • Number of similar timestamps k = 10 in Section IV-C
    Used to estimate future gains from historical timestamps with similar covariates; choice is not justified by sensitivity analysis.
  • Feature selection significance level alpha = 5% in Section IV-B
    Used in the partial Pearson correlation filter; fixed without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The market operator is a trusted intermediary that stores data, computes forecasts, and distributes payments without leaking private data.
    Section III-A states data privacy is contingent upon the market operator's integrity and impartiality.
  • ad hoc to paper Sellers bid truthfully and data reports are truthful.
    The Appendix Proposition 3 attempts to prove truthfulness, but the proof assumes the conclusion, so this remains an unproved behavioral assumption.
  • domain assumption Future forecasting gain can be estimated from historical timestamps with similar covariates using Euclidean distance.
    Section III-B and Algorithm 4 use this to build the Bid-Gain Table; if these estimates are biased, prices are wrong.
  • domain assumption The stationarity of the target series determines whether a single Bid-Gain Table is valid or horizon-specific tables are needed.
    Algorithm 4 branches on stationarity; no stationarity test details or validation are provided.
  • standard math The cost-constrained LASSO solution from Yu et al. [29] applies to the spline-expanded features and to the buyer-seller bid setting.
    Proposition 1 is quoted from [29]; the paper relies on that theorem for the correctness of Algorithm 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Budget-constrained Collaborative Renewable Energy Forecasting Market." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DZXWIVP

@misc{pith2026250112367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Budget-constrained Collaborative Renewable Energy Forecasting Market},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DZXWIVP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12367}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate power forecasting from renewable energy sources (RES) is crucial for integrating additional RES capacity into the power system and realizing sustainability goals. This work emphasizes the importance of integrating decentralized spatio-temporal data into forecasting models. However, decentralized data ownership presents a critical obstacle to the success of such spatio-temporal models, and incentive mechanisms to foster data-sharing need to be considered. The main contributions are a) a comparative analysis of the forecasting models, advocating for efficient and interpretable spline LASSO regression models, and b) a bidding mechanism within the data/analytics market to ensure fair compensation for data providers and enable both buyers and sellers to express their data price requirements. Furthermore, an incentive mechanism for time series forecasting is proposed, effectively incorporating price constraints and preventing redundant feature allocation. Results show significant accuracy improvements and potential monetary gains for data sellers. For wind power data, an average root mean squared error improvement of over 10% was achieved by comparing forecasts generated by the proposal with locally generated ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12367 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Related existing algorithmic solutions for analytics trading. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of price definition. which corresponds to the bid that maximizes the expected gain while respecting the buyer valuation function. The value function represents the minimum acceptable gain for each possible price [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results for the advanced synthetic setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-correlation between zones. C. Wind power data The goal is to produce 24-hour-ahead wind power genera￾tion forecasts for 10 Australian zones (or wind power plants), with a launch time 00h00. The dataset used in the Global Energy Forecasting Competition 2014 (GEFCo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Price definition and obtained gains for Zone 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of forecasting models regarding RMSE. GBR KR LASSO SLASSO Collaborative Local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: RMSE for three test sets, considering Zone 9. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    High-dimensional cost-constrained regression via nonconvex optimization,

    G. Yu, H. Fu, and Y . Liu, “High-dimensional cost-constrained regression via nonconvex optimization,” Technom., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 52–64, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Calibrated probabilistic forecasting at the stateline wind energy center,

    T. Gneiting, K. Larson, K. Westrick, M. G. Genton, and E. Aldrich, “Calibrated probabilistic forecasting at the stateline wind energy center,” J. of the American Stat. Assoc. , vol. 101, no. 475, pp. 968–979, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    LASSO vector autoregression structures for very short-term wind power forecasting,

    L. Cavalcante, R. J. Bessa, M. Reis, and J. Browell, “LASSO vector autoregression structures for very short-term wind power forecasting,” Wind Energy, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 657–675, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    A federated infrastructure for European data spaces,

    B. Otto, “A federated infrastructure for European data spaces,” Commu- nications of the ACM , vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 44–45, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    A survey on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection,

    Q. Li, Z. Wen, Z. Wu, S. Hu, N. Wang, Y . Li, and et al., “A survey on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection,” IEEE Trans. on Know. and Data Eng. , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3347–3366., 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Privacy-preserving distributed learning for renewable energy forecasting,

    C. Goncalves, R. J. Bessa, and P. Pinson, “Privacy-preserving distributed learning for renewable energy forecasting,” IEEE Trans. on Sustainable Energy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1777–1787, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Optimized, direct sale of privacy in personal data marketplaces,

    J. Parra-Arnau, “Optimized, direct sale of privacy in personal data marketplaces,” Information Sciences, vol. 424, pp. 354–384, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    How to sell a data set? pricing policies for data monetization,

    S. Mehta, M. Dawande, G. Janakiraman, and V . Mookerjee, “How to sell a data set? pricing policies for data monetization,” Information Systems Research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1281–1297, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Data sharing in energy systems,

    J. Wang, F. Gao, Y . Zhou, Q. Guo, C.-W. Tan, J. Song, and Y . Wang, “Data sharing in energy systems,” Adv. in App. Energy , vol. 10, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    A marketplace for data: An algorithmic solution,

    A. Agarwal, M. Dahleh, and T. Sarkar, “A marketplace for data: An algorithmic solution,” Proc. of the 2019 ACM Conf. on Economics and Computation, pp. 701–726, 2019. 12

    2019

  3. [10]

    Towards data markets in renewable energy forecasting,

    C. Gonc ¸alves, P. Pinson, and R. J. Bessa, “Towards data markets in renewable energy forecasting,” IEEE Trans. on Sustainable Energy , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 533–542, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Trading data for wind power forecasting: A regression market with lasso regularization,

    L. Han, P. Pinson, and J. Kazempour, “Trading data for wind power forecasting: A regression market with lasso regularization,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 212, p. 108442, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    A review of very short-term wind and solar power forecasting,

    R. Tawn and J. Browell, “A review of very short-term wind and solar power forecasting,” Ren. and Sustain. Energy Reviews , vol. 153, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    One-hour-ahead wind speed prediction using a bayesian methodology,

    M. S. Miranda and R. W. Dunn, “One-hour-ahead wind speed prediction using a bayesian methodology,” in 2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting . IEEE, 2006

    2006

  7. [14]

    Wind power forecasting and error analysis using the autoregressive moving average modeling,

    S. Rajagopalan and S. Santoso, “Wind power forecasting and error analysis using the autoregressive moving average modeling,” in 2009 IEEE power & Energy Society General Meeting . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–6

    2009

  8. [15]

    Predicting solar radiation at high resolutions: A comparison of time series forecasts,

    G. Reikard, “Predicting solar radiation at high resolutions: A comparison of time series forecasts,” Solar Energy, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 342–349, 2009

    2009

  9. [16]

    Solar power forecasting with sparse vector autoregression structures,

    L. Cavalcante and R. J. Bessa, “Solar power forecasting with sparse vector autoregression structures,” in IEEE PowerTech, 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  10. [17]

    Using quantile regression to extend an existing wind power forecasting system with probabilistic forecasts,

    H. A. Nielsen, H. Madsen, and T. S. Nielsen, “Using quantile regression to extend an existing wind power forecasting system with probabilistic forecasts,” Wind Energy, vol. 9, no. 1–2, pp. 95–108, Jan. 2006

    2006

  11. [18]

    Probabilistic forecasts of wind power generation accounting for geographically dispersed information,

    J. Tastu, P. Pinson, P.-J. Trombe, and H. Madsen, “Probabilistic forecasts of wind power generation accounting for geographically dispersed information,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 480–489, 2013

    2013

  12. [19]

    Short-term wind speed and wind power prediction using hybrid empirical mode decomposition and kernel ridge regression,

    J. Naik, P. Satapathy, and P. Dash, “Short-term wind speed and wind power prediction using hybrid empirical mode decomposition and kernel ridge regression,” Applied Soft Comp. , vol. 70, pp. 1167–1188, 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    Day-ahead forecasting of solar photovoltaic output power using multilayer perceptron,

    R. M Ehsan, S. P. Simon, and P. Venkateswaran, “Day-ahead forecasting of solar photovoltaic output power using multilayer perceptron,” Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 28, pp. 3981–3992, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Hour-ahead wind power forecast based on random forests,

    A. Lahouar and J. B. H. Slama, “Hour-ahead wind power forecast based on random forests,” Renewable Energy, vol. 109, pp. 529–541, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    Improving renewable energy forecasting with a grid of numerical weather predictions,

    J. R. Andrade and R. J. Bessa, “Improving renewable energy forecasting with a grid of numerical weather predictions,” IEEE Trans. on Sustain- able Energy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1571–1580, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Deep learning for renewable energy forecasting: A taxonomy, and systematic literature review,

    C. Ying, W. Wang, J. Yu, Q. Li, D. Yu, and J. Liu, “Deep learning for renewable energy forecasting: A taxonomy, and systematic literature review,” Journal of Cleaner Production , p. 135414, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Regression markets and applica- tion to energy forecasting,

    P. Pinson, L. Han, and J. Kazempour, “Regression markets and applica- tion to energy forecasting,” Top, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 533–573, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Bayesian regression markets,

    T. Falconer, J. Kazempour, and P. Pinson, “Bayesian regression markets,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 25, no. 180, pp. 1–38, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    Data trading with multiple owners, collectors, and users: An iterative auction mechanism,

    X. Cao, Y . Chen, and K. R. Liu, “Data trading with multiple owners, collectors, and users: An iterative auction mechanism,” IEEE Trans. on Signal and Inf. Proc. over Networks , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 268–281, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    Incentivizing data shar- ing for energy forecasting: Analytics markets with correlated data,

    T. Falconer, J. Kazempour, and P. Pinson, “Incentivizing data shar- ing for energy forecasting: Analytics markets with correlated data,” arXiv:2310.06000, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Chankong and Y

    V . Chankong and Y . Y . Haimes,Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology. Courier Dover Publications, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Probabilistic energy forecasting: Global energy forecasting competition 2014 and beyond,

    T. Hong, P. Pinson, S. Fan, H. Zareipour, A. Troccoli, and R. J. Hyndman, “Probabilistic energy forecasting: Global energy forecasting competition 2014 and beyond,” Inter. J. of Forecasting, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 896–913, 2016

    2014

  23. [31]

    Next generation reservoir computing,

    D. J. Gauthier, E. Bollt, A. Griffith, and W. A. Barbosa, “Next generation reservoir computing,” Nature Comm., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5564, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Wind turbine fault detection based on spatial-temporal feature and neighbor operation state,

    X. Qian, T. Sun, Y . Zhang, B. Wang, and M. A. A. Gendeel, “Wind turbine fault detection based on spatial-temporal feature and neighbor operation state,” Renewable Energy, vol. 219, p. 119419, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Metalearning for hyperparameter optimization,

    P. Brazdil, J. N. van Rijn, C. Soares, and J. Vanschoren, “Metalearning for hyperparameter optimization,” in Metalearning: Applications to Automated ML and Data Mining . Springer, 2022, pp. 103–122

    2022

  26. [34]

    Design and im- plementation of power data traceability system based on blockchain,

    F. Shang, X. Li, X. Wen, S. Guo, C. Liu, and H. Hu, “Design and im- plementation of power data traceability system based on blockchain,” in 12th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Networks (CENet 2022), Haikou, China, Oct. 2022, pp. 135–145. Carla Gonc ¸alves...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.