Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Privacy-Preserving Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading via Hybrid Secure Computations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid of CRT-Paillier encryption and secret sharing lets fully distributed P2P energy trading hide prosumer data while retaining exact optimal solutions and linear convergence.

desk verdict Useful hybrid secure-computation protocol for P2P trading, but the convergence guarantee for the random encryption coefficient is built on a false singular value and does not hold for the problem actually solved. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20577 v1 pith:CNQMUMYA submitted 2025-05-26 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

Junhong Liu , Qinfei Long , Rong-Peng Liu , Wenjie Liu , Xin Cui , Yunhe Hou This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYmath.OC
keywords peer-to-peerenergytradingprivacypreservationhomomorphicencryptionsecretsharingdistributedoptimizationlinearconvergenceChineseRemainderTheoremsmartgrid
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

This paper tries to establish that fully distributed peer-to-peer energy trading can be made privacy-preserving without giving up exact optimality and without a trusted third party. Its proposal combines two secure-computation tools: CRT-Paillier homomorphic encryption for two-agent operations and a tailored secret-sharing scheme for multi-agent operations, with a random encryption coefficient that both hides data and is provably compatible with linear convergence. The authors derive a feasible range for that coefficient and verify on distribution test systems that the protected protocol reaches the same traded-energy optimum as the centralized and unprotected distributed solutions while keeping per-agent computation low enough for real-time trading. If correct, the result would remove a key obstacle to practical P2P electricity markets: the risk that shared gradients and variables leak household-level consumption or utility parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid secure computation stack: CRT-Paillier homomorphic encryption for two-party sums, a tailored secret-sharing scheme with polynomial shares $G_i(Z_j)=R_i+\varphi_{i,1}Z_j+\dots$ for multi-party sums, and a random encryption coefficient $r_i$ inserted in the two-party encrypted sum. The coefficient is what couples security to convergence: Theorem 1 gives three conditions under which the primal-dual updates converge linearly, producing the feasible range $0.0223\le r_i\le 2.3057$ under the buyer parameters used in the simulations. The multi-party protocol is split into an offline phase, where shares are encrypted and distributed once, and an online phase, where each agent only sends one masked value per iteration.

What would settle it

Compute the actual singular values of each agent's matrix $A_i$ in (2b) from constraints (1i)-(1l), checking whether $\sigma_{\min}(A_i)=0$ because $A_i$ is $C\times D$ with $C<D$. If it is zero, then with the stated step sizes none of Cond.1-Cond.3 is satisfied, and the reported feasible range $0.0223\le r_i\le 2.3057$ is not supported by Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hybrid protocol solves the fully distributed P2P trading problem exactly while protecting shared data from honest-but-curious participants. The proof path is to rewrite the trading problem as node-based primal-dual updates, show that without protection these updates let an adversary recover private utility parameters within two iterations, then encrypt the two-party gradient sums with CRT-Paillier homomorphic encryption multiplied by a random coefficient $r_i$, and mask multi-party sums with secret shares. Theorem 1 states the coefficient and the dual step sizes must meet one of three conditions for linear convergence; with the buyer parameters used in the simulations this yields $0.0223\le r_i\le 2.3057$. Theorem 2 and its corollary state that a receiving agent cannot infer the other party's exact data from the encrypted or masked sums unless the true values happen to be exact negatives. Numerical results on systems from 15 to 141 buses show the protected method converges in about the same number of iterations as the unprotected one and matches the centralized optimum.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes each agent's constraint matrix has a positive smallest singular value, set to $1.0$ for buyers in the simulations, but the actual matrices have more columns than rows, so the standard smallest singular value is zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same exact optimum as centralized clearing is achievable with no coordinator and no trusted third party, so privacy need not be traded against economic efficiency.
  • Random coefficients for two-party encryption can be chosen from a proven interval, meaning security and convergence can be guaranteed simultaneously rather than tuned heuristically.
  • The CRT-Paillier variant cuts per-agent encryption time by roughly an order of magnitude relative to standard Paillier at 128-bit keys, and the offline secret-sharing phase costs only milliseconds, so the protocol fits a 5-minute real-time trading window even on larger systems.
  • An eavesdropper or honest-but-curious neighbor cannot recover intermediate power injections, voltages, or utility-function parameters, blocking the two-iteration inference attack demonstrated in the paper.
  • The offline/online split reduces multi-party communication per iteration from $O(m)$ to $O(1)$ per agent, improving scalability as the number of trading partners grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the convergence guarantee as stated depends on $\sigma_{\min}(A_i)=1.0$ for buyers, but the constraint matrices in (2b) are wider than tall, so the standard minimum singular value is zero; if that holds, the proof's conditions are not met by the actual problem and the reported range would need a different derivation.
  • Beyond the paper: security is argued for honest-but-curious participants, and 128-bit keys are short by modern public-key standards, so a production deployment would need larger keys and a model that also covers malicious behavior.
  • Beyond the paper: the same offline/online secret-sharing pattern could be reused in other fully distributed optimization settings where two-party and multi-party operations coexist, such as federated learning over sparse networks.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct experimental check would monitor the convergence rate as $r_i$ approaches the boundaries of $[0.0223,2.3057]$ on different bus systems and compare it with the linear-rate predictions of Theorem 1.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a privacy-preserving scheme for fully distributed P2P energy trading based on CRT-Paillier encryption for secure two-party computations and a tailored secret-sharing mechanism for secure multi-party computations. The authors claim that the scheme is exact, avoids a trusted third party, and preserves the optimality of the distributed PDHG solution. A central contribution is a theoretical feasible range for the random encryption coefficient r_i that is claimed to guarantee linear convergence. Numerical experiments on IEEE 15- to 141-bus systems report exact optimality, privacy, and computational efficiency.

Significance. If the convergence guarantee were valid, the hybrid protocol would be a useful contribution: it avoids a trusted third party, preserves exact optimality, and the reported speedups over standard Paillier encryption are substantial. The paper includes a detailed Appendix with a convergence proof and extensive numerical comparisons across five systems. However, the central convergence result is not applicable to the problem actually solved, because the constraint matrix A_i is wide and the individual cost G_i is not strongly convex on the full variable space. Consequently, the derived feasible range for r_i is unsupported, which undermines the paper's main theoretical contribution and the claimed convergence guarantee.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.A and Theorem 1] The numerical assignment σ_min(A_i)=1.0 for buyers is inconsistent with the constraint matrix defined by (2b) together with (1i)-(1l). For an agent with trading set S_i, A_i has C=|S_i|+3 rows and D=5+|S_i| columns, so C<D and the standard minimum singular value is 0. With σ_min(A_i)=0, the sign condition (18f) becomes ξ†_{i,a} σmax²(A_i)=0.04>0, so Cond.2 is not the applicable branch; evaluating Cond.1 gives k_{i,2}=(ρ_i−ξ_{i,b}σmax²(B_i))/(ξ†_{i,a}σmax²(A_i))=(0.02−0.0543)/0.04<0, so no positive r_i satisfies Cond.1, Cond.2, or Cond.3. The claimed feasible range 0.0223≤r_i≤2.3057 therefore does not follow from the stated assumptions.
  2. [Appendix A, after Eq. (28)] The proof states that G_η is ρ_η-strongly convex with ρ_η = ρ_i + (η†_i r_i − ξ†_{i,a} r_i) σmin²(A_i). Because A_i is wide, σmin(A_i)=0 and this term vanishes, leaving ρ_η=ρ_i. The subsequent requirement ρ_η − ξ†_{i,a} r_i σmax²(A_i) − ξ_{i,b} σmax²(B_i) ≥ 0 then cannot be met for any r_i>0 with the reported parameters (ρ_i≥0.02, ξ†_{i,a}=0.02, ξ_{i,b}=0.015, σmax(A_i)=1.4142, σmax(B_i)=1.9021). Thus Theorem 1's proof is not applicable to the P2P problem solved in the paper.
  3. [Assumption 1 and Remark 1] The cost function G_i in (1a)/(2a) is not δ-smooth and ρ-strongly convex on R^D as Assumption 1 requires. It contains the nonsmooth term ω_b[−p_i+Σ_{j∈S_i}e_{i,j}]_+, and it does not depend on q_i, Q_i, or v_i even though those are primal variables in Φ_i. The convergence proof in Appendix A uses ρ_i-strong convexity and δ_i-smoothness of G_i, so this assumption is load-bearing; the paper does not show that the decomposed problem satisfies it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (18b) and (18e)] The symbol k_{i,2} is used for two different expressions in Cond.1 and Cond.2, which makes the conditions hard to read; distinct symbols should be used.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (23)-(27)] The quantity c_Φ is first defined as the scalar 1−µ_iξ_{i,a}σmax²(A_i)−µ_iξ_{i,b}σmax²(B_i), but it is then used as a coefficient multiplying ||Φ̃^{k+1}||²; the notation should be clarified.
  3. [Section IV.A] The values σ_max(A_i)=1.4142 and σ_max(B_i)=1.9021 are stated without specifying the actual matrices; because the matrix dimensions and entries are not given in Section II.B, the reader cannot verify these values.
  4. [Appendix B] The proof of Theorem 2 counts equations and unknowns, but it assumes the random coefficients r_{i,j}^k are independent across iterations and known only to agent j; this modeling choice should be stated in the theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasible range for r_i is a derived sufficient condition from external PDHG convergence theory, not a fitted or self-referential prediction; the σ_min(A_i)=0 concern is an assumption mismatch, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Theorem 1's feasible range for the random encryption coefficient r_i is derived in the appendix by extending the external PDHG linear-convergence analysis of [48] to accommodate vector inequality constraints. The proof defines a modified strong-convexity constant ρη = ρ_i + (η†_i r_i − ξ†_{i,a} r_i) σ_min²(A_i) and obtains Cond.1–Cond.3 as algebraic case splits of sufficient conditions; no parameter is calibrated to make a target output true. Section IV.A then substitutes stated parameter values (σ_min(A_i)=1.0, σ_max(A_i)=1.4142, ρ_i≥0.02, δ_i≤7.0, etc.) into Cond.2 to compute 0.0223 ≤ r_i ≤ 2.3057. The convergence simulation is a separate demonstration, not the source of the range, so this is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations are not load-bearing: [31] is a parenthetical remark about adding a loss term without changing problem structure, and [45] is a data repository link. The privacy result (Theorem 2) is an underdetermined-equation counting argument independent of the paper's own convergence theorem. The substantive concern raised by the skeptic—that the actual global-constraint matrix A_i in (2b) has fewer rows than columns, giving σ_min(A_i)=0 and making the reported Cond.2 evaluation inapplicable—is a correctness or assumption-applicability issue, not circularity: the theorem and range are not defined in terms of the simulation outcome, nor are they fitted to guarantee convergence by construction. Score 1 reflects the absence of circular reduction while acknowledging minor self-citations and the numerical-applicability caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof rests on smoothness and strong-convexity assumptions and on singular-value bounds. The sigma_min(A_i)=1.0 value is not a fitted constant in the derivation, but it is an unjustified numerical input that changes whether the theorem applies, so it is listed as an ad hoc assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Random encryption coefficient r_{i,t} = Drawn from [0.0223, 2.3057] in simulations; random per iteration
    Hand-chosen random multiplier in secure two-party computation; the convergence proof and the reported feasible range depend on its value.
  • Algorithm step sizes and penalty parameter: mu_i=0.07, xi^dagger_{i,a}=0.02, xi_{i,b}=0.015, eta^dagger=1.6 = As listed in Section IV.A
    Hand-picked to satisfy Assumption 2 and to select Cond.2. With the corrected sigma_min(A_i)=0, these values satisfy none of the three conditions of Theorem 1.
  • CRT-Paillier precision tau = Not stated explicitly; four decimal digits preserved per Fig. 6
    Scaling factor for floating-point values; affects exactness and overflow detection in the encryption domain.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each decomposed cost function G_i is delta_i-smooth and rho_i-strongly-convex (Assumption 1, eqs. 3a-3b).
    The objective (1a) and augmented Lagrangian (5) contain nonsmooth [ ]_+ terms, so differentiability and the stated smoothness are not automatic; Theorem 1 relies on these constants.
  • domain assumption Initial penalty parameter exceeds initial dual step size: eta^dagger_i - xi^dagger_{i,a} > 0 (Assumption 2).
    Used to keep the effective quadratic penalty in the proof positive when r_i > 0.
  • ad hoc to paper The standard singular values of A_i in (2b) are as used numerically, in particular sigma_min(A_i)=1.0 for buyers.
    A_i is C-by-D with fewer rows than columns, so the standard minimum singular value is 0. The Cond.2 derivation and the reported r range depend on the positive value.
  • domain assumption Paillier and CRT-Paillier encryption are semantically secure under the composite residuosity assumption.
    The privacy claims against honest-but-curious parties and eavesdroppers assume the underlying cryptosystem from [36],[37] is secure.
  • standard math The inequality ||A_i^T lambda_a + B_i^T lambda_b||^2 >= sigma_min^2(M_i)||lambda||^2 applies because lambda lies in the range space of M_i, following Lemmas 1 and 2 of [48].
    The proof of equation (24) cites [48]; the range-space condition is not verified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Privacy-Preserving Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading via Hybrid Secure Computations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNQMUMYA

@misc{pith2026250520577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Privacy-Preserving Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading via Hybrid Secure Computations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNQMUMYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20577}
}
read the original abstract

The massive integration of uncertain distributed renewable energy resources into power systems raises power imbalance concerns. Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading provides a promising way to balance the prosumers' volatile energy power generation and demands locally. Particularly, to protect the privacy of prosumers, distributed P2P energy trading is broadly advocated. However, severe privacy leakage issues can emerge in the realistic fully distributed P2P energy trading paradigm. Meanwhile, in this paradigm, two-party and multi-party computations coexist, challenging the naive privacy-preserving techniques. To tackle privacy leakage issues arising from the fully distributed P2P energy trading, this paper proposes a privacy-preserving approach via hybrid secure computations. A secure multi-party computation mechanism consisting of offline and online phases is developed to ensure the security of shared data by leveraging the tailored secret sharing method. In addition, the Paillier encryption method based on the Chinese Remainder Theorem is proposed for both the secure two-party computation and the offline phase of the multi-party computation. The random encryption coefficient is designed to enhance the security of the two-party computation and simultaneously guarantee the convergence of the distributed optimization. The feasible range for the encryption coefficient is derived with a strict mathematical proof. Numerical simulations demonstrate the exactness, effectiveness, and scalability of the proposed privacy-preserving approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed privacy-preserving approach via hybrid secure computations for the distributed P2P energy trading. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Secure two-party encrypted computation mechanism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IEEE 15-bus distribution system with P2P energy trading [7], [44]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performances of the convergence. (a) primal and dual residual errors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of privacy preservation. (a) secure multi-party computa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Power system stability issues, clas- sifications and research prospects in the context of high-penetration of renewables and power electronics,

    J. Shair, H. Li, J. Hu, and X. Xie, “Power system stability issues, clas- sifications and research prospects in the context of high-penetration of renewables and power electronics,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 145, p. 111111, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Using peer-to-peer energy-trading platforms to incentivize prosumers to form federated power plants,

    T. Morstyn, N. Farrell, S. J. Darby, and M. D. McCulloch, “Using peer-to-peer energy-trading platforms to incentivize prosumers to form federated power plants,”Nature Energy, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Online optimization for real-time peer-to-peer electricity market mechanisms,

    Z. Guo, P. Pinson, S. Chen, Q. Yang, and Z. Yang, “Online optimization for real-time peer-to-peer electricity market mechanisms,”IEEE Trans- actions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 4151–4163, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Distributed transactive energy trading framework in distribution networks,

    J. Li, C. Zhang, Z. Xu, J. Wang, J. Zhao, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Distributed transactive energy trading framework in distribution networks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 7215–7227, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Cooperative p2p energy trading in active distribution networks: An milp-based nash bargaining solution,

    W. Zhong, S. Xie, K. Xie, Q. Yang, and L. Xie, “Cooperative p2p energy trading in active distribution networks: An milp-based nash bargaining solution,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1264– 1276, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Two-stage community energy trading under end-edge-cloud orchestration,

    X. Li, C. Li, X. Liu, G. Chen, and Z. Y . Dong, “Two-stage community energy trading under end-edge-cloud orchestration,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Peer-to-peer energy trading in transactive markets considering physical network constraints,

    M. H. Ullah and J.-D. Park, “Peer-to-peer energy trading in transactive markets considering physical network constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3390–3403, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Neighborhood watch: Security and privacy analysis of automatic meter reading systems,

    I. Rouf, H. Mustafa, M. Xu, W. Xu, R. Miller, and M. Gruteser, “Neighborhood watch: Security and privacy analysis of automatic meter reading systems,” inProceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, 2012, pp. 462–473

    work page 2012

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Privacy preserving distributed optimization using homomorphic encryption,

    Y . Lu and M. Zhu, “Privacy preserving distributed optimization using homomorphic encryption,”Automatica, vol. 96, pp. 314–325, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Achieving differential privacy of data disclosure in the smart grid,

    J. Zhao, T. Jung, Y . Wang, and X. Li, “Achieving differential privacy of data disclosure in the smart grid,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2014-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2014, pp. 504–512

    2014

  3. [11]

    Privacy impact on general- ized nash equilibrium in peer-to-peer electricity market,

    I. Shilov, H. Le Cadre, and A. Busic, “Privacy impact on general- ized nash equilibrium in peer-to-peer electricity market,”Operations Research Letters, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 759–766, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,

    C. Dwork, A. Rothet al., “The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,”Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 9, no. 3–4, pp. 211–407, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Realistic differentially-private transmission power flow data release,

    D. Smith, F. Geth, E. Vercoe, A. Feutrill, M. Ding, J. Chan, J. Foster, and T. Rakotoarivelo, “Realistic differentially-private transmission power flow data release,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14036, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Differentially private algorithms for synthetic power system datasets,

    V . Dvorkin and A. Botterud, “Differentially private algorithms for synthetic power system datasets,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11079, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Mitigating cyber privacy leakage for distributed dc optimal power flow in smart grid with radial topology,

    E. Liu and P. Cheng, “Mitigating cyber privacy leakage for distributed dc optimal power flow in smart grid with radial topology,”IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 7911–7920, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Differential privacy for power grid obfuscation,

    F. Fioretto, T. W. Mak, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Differential privacy for power grid obfuscation,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1356–1366, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Differentially private optimal power flow for distribution grids,

    V . Dvorkin, F. Fioretto, P. Van Hentenryck, P. Pinson, and J. Kazempour, “Differentially private optimal power flow for distribution grids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2186–2196, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Homomorphic encryption,

    X. Yi, R. Paulet, and E. Bertino, “Homomorphic encryption,” inHomo- morphic encryption and applications. Springer, 2014, pp. 27–46

    2014

  11. [19]

    The paillier cryptosystem,

    M. O’Keeffe, “The paillier cryptosystem,”Mathematics Department April, vol. 18, pp. 1–16, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Privacy-preserving distributed optimal power flow with partially homomorphic encryption,

    T. Wu, C. Zhao, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Privacy-preserving distributed optimal power flow with partially homomorphic encryption,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 4506–4521, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Distributed consensus-based economic dispatch in power grids using the paillier cryptosystem,

    Y . Yan, Z. Chen, V . Varadharajan, M. J. Hossain, and G. E. Town, “Distributed consensus-based economic dispatch in power grids using the paillier cryptosystem,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3493–3502, 2021. 13

    2021

  14. [22]

    Detection of false data injection attacks in smart grid: A secure federated deep learning approach,

    Y . Li, X. Wei, Y . Li, Z. Dong, and M. Shahidehpour, “Detection of false data injection attacks in smart grid: A secure federated deep learning approach,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4862– 4872, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Distributed additive encryption and quantization for privacy preserving federated deep learn- ing,

    H. Zhu, R. Wang, Y . Jin, K. Liang, and J. Ning, “Distributed additive encryption and quantization for privacy preserving federated deep learn- ing,”Neurocomputing, vol. 463, pp. 309–327, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Admm based privacy-preserving decentralized optimization,

    C. Zhang, M. Ahmad, and Y . Wang, “Admm based privacy-preserving decentralized optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Information Foren- sics and Security, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 565–580, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    On secret sharing systems,

    E. Karnin, J. Greene, and M. Hellman, “On secret sharing systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 35–41, 1983

    1983

  18. [26]

    Fully privacy-preserving distributed optimization based on secret sharing,

    N. Tian, Q. Guo, H. Sun, and X. Zhou, “Fully privacy-preserving distributed optimization based on secret sharing,”TechRxiv. Prepr, pp. 0–10, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Distributed privacy-preserving electric vehicle charging control based on secret sharing,

    X. Huo and M. Liu, “Distributed privacy-preserving electric vehicle charging control based on secret sharing,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 211, p. 108357, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Adaptive var control for distribution circuits with photovoltaic generators,

    H.-G. Yeh, D. F. Gayme, and S. H. Low, “Adaptive var control for distribution circuits with photovoltaic generators,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1656–1663, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Hierarchical distributed voltage regulation in networked autonomous grids,

    X. Zhou, Z. Liu, W. Wang, C. Zhao, F. Ding, and L. Chen, “Hierarchical distributed voltage regulation in networked autonomous grids,” in2019 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 5563–5569

    2019

  22. [30]

    Peer-to-peer energy trading in smart grid considering power losses and network fees,

    A. Paudel, L. Sampath, J. Yang, and H. B. Gooi, “Peer-to-peer energy trading in smart grid considering power losses and network fees,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 4727–4737, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Online distributed optimization for spatio-temporally constrained real-time peer-to-peer energy trading,

    J. Liu, Q. Long, R.-P. Liu, W. Liu, and Y . Hou, “Online distributed optimization for spatio-temporally constrained real-time peer-to-peer energy trading,”Applied Energy, vol. 331, p. 120216, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    On the convergence of primal-dual hybrid gradient algorithm,

    B. He, Y . You, and X. Yuan, “On the convergence of primal-dual hybrid gradient algorithm,”SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2526–2537, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Enabling privacy-preservation in decentralized optimization,

    C. Zhang and Y . Wang, “Enabling privacy-preservation in decentralized optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 679–689, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Privacy-preserving obfuscation for distributed power systems,

    T. W. Mak, F. Fioretto, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Privacy-preserving obfuscation for distributed power systems,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 189, p. 106718, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    A privacy-preserving distributed control of optimal power flow,

    M. Ryu and K. Kim, “A privacy-preserving distributed control of optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 2042–2051, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residu- osity classes,

    P. Paillier, “Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residu- osity classes,” inInternational conference on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques. Springer, 1999, pp. 223–238

    1999

  29. [37]

    Fast decryption algorithm for paillier homomorphic cryptosystem,

    T. B. Ogunseyi and T. Bo, “Fast decryption algorithm for paillier homomorphic cryptosystem,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Power, Intelligent Computing and Systems (ICPICS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 803–806

    2020

  30. [38]

    Survey on fully homomorphic encryption, theory and appli- cations,

    C. Marcolla, V . Sucasas, M. Manzano, R. Bassoli, F. H. Fitzek, and N. Aaraj, “Survey on fully homomorphic encryption, theory and appli- cations,” 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Private aggregation with application to distributed optimization,

    K. Tjell and R. Wisniewski, “Private aggregation with application to distributed optimization,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1591–1596, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    An improved backward/forward sweep power flow method based on a new network information organization for radial distribution systems,

    S. Ouali and A. Cherkaoui, “An improved backward/forward sweep power flow method based on a new network information organization for radial distribution systems,”Journal of electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 2020, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Mat- power: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,

    R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-S ´anchez, and R. J. Thomas, “Mat- power: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    A fully- decentralized transactive energy management under distribution network constraints via peer-to-peer energy trading,

    Y . Zhou, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Wei, W. Sun, and J. Wang, “A fully- decentralized transactive energy management under distribution network constraints via peer-to-peer energy trading,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Privacy-preserving and low-latency federated learning in edge computing,

    C. He, G. Liu, S. Guo, and Y . Yang, “Privacy-preserving and low-latency federated learning in edge computing,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Grid-oriented coordination strategy of prosumers using game-theoretic peer-to-peer trading framework in energy community,

    W.-P. Lee, D. Han, and D. Won, “Grid-oriented coordination strategy of prosumers using game-theoretic peer-to-peer trading framework in energy community,”Applied Energy, vol. 326, p. 119980, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    load data for prosumers,

    J. Liu, “load data for prosumers,” https://github.com/johnny-ee/ data-prosumer.git, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    A multiplicative weights mechanism for privacy-preserving data analysis,

    M. Hardt and G. N. Rothblum, “A multiplicative weights mechanism for privacy-preserving data analysis,” in2010 IEEE 51st annual symposium on foundations of computer science. IEEE, 2010, pp. 61–70

    2010

  39. [47]

    A modular approach to key safeguarding,

    C. Asmuth and J. Bloom, “A modular approach to key safeguarding,” IEEE transactions on information theory, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 208–210, 1983

    1983

  40. [48]

    Linear convergence of primal–dual gradient methods and their performance in distributed optimization,

    S. A. Alghunaim and A. H. Sayed, “Linear convergence of primal–dual gradient methods and their performance in distributed optimization,” Automatica, vol. 117, p. 109003, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Nesterov,Introductory lectures on convex optimization: A basic course

    Y . Nesterov,Introductory lectures on convex optimization: A basic course. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003, vol. 87

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.