On the Effect of Bounded Rationality in Electricity Markets (2404.19236v2)
Abstract: Nash equilibrium is a common solution concept that captures strategic interaction in electricity market analysis. However, it requires a fundamental but impractical assumption that all market participants are fully rational, implying unlimited computational resources and cognitive abilities. To tackle the limitation, level-k reasoning is proposed and studied to model the bounded rational behaviors. In this paper, we consider a Cournot competition in electricity markets with two suppliers, both following level-k reasoning. One is a self-interested firm and the other serves as a benevolent social planner. First, we observe that the optimal strategy of the social planner corresponds to a particular rationality level, where being either less or more rational may both result in reduced social welfare. We then investigate the effect of bounded rationality on social welfare performance and find that it can largely deviate from that at the Nash equilibrium point. From the perspective of the social planner, we characterize optimal, expectation maximizing and robust maximin strategies, when having access to different information. Finally, by designing its utility function, we find that social welfare is better off if the social planner cooperates with or fights the self-interested firm. Numerical experiments further demonstrate and validate our findings.
- S. Abapour, M. Nazari-Heris, B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, and M. Tarafdar Hagh, “Game theory approaches for the solution of power system problems: A comprehensive review,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, vol. 27, 11 2018.
- Y. Xiao, C. Bandi, and E. Wei, “Supply function equilibrium in power markets: Mesh networks,” in 2016 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP), 2016, pp. 861–865.
- L. Jia and L. Tong, “Dynamic pricing and distributed energy management for demand response,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1128–1136, 2016.
- N. Aguiar, A. Dubey, and V. Gupta, “Pricing demand-side flexibility with noisy consumers: Mean-variance trade-offs,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1151–1161, 2023.
- V. Gountis and A. Bakirtzis, “Efficient determination of cournot equilibria in electricity markets,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1837–1844, 2004.
- L. Cunningham, R. Baldick, and M. Baughman, “An empirical study of applied game theory: transmission constrained cournot behavior,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 166–172, 2002.
- B. Zhang, R. Johari, and R. Rajagopal, “Competition and efficiency of coalitions in cournot games with uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 884–896, 2019.
- D. Cai, S. Bose, and A. Wierman, “On the role of a market maker in networked cournot competition,” Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1122–1144, 2019.
- S. Yamashita, M. A. Khan, T. Hatanaka, K. Uchida, and L. Tong, “Stability analysis of pricing competition in retail electricity market: On impact of bounded rationality,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 5646–5652.
- H. Yang, R. Zhou, and M. Lai, “Dynamics of cournot game of electricity market with bounded rationality considering transmission constraints,” in 2005/2006 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition, 2006, pp. 511–516.
- M. Runco, “Bounded rationality in a cournot duopoly game,” Ensayos Revista de Economia, vol. 0, no. 2, pp. 79–94, November 2015.
- D. O. Stahl, “Evolution of smartn players,” Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 604–617, 1993.
- C. F. Camerer, T.-H. Ho, and J. K. Chong, “A psychological approach to strategic thinking in games,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 157–162, 2015.
- V. P. Crawford, M. A. Costa-Gomes, and N. Iriberri, “Structural models of nonequilibrium strategic thinking: Theory, evidence, and applications,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 5–62, March 2013.
- A. Arad and A. Rubinstein, “The 11-20 money request game: A level-k reasoning study,” American Economic Review, vol. 102, no. 7, pp. 3561–73, December 2012.
- C. A. Berry, B. F. Hobbs, W. A. Meroney, R. P. O’Neill, and W. R. Stewart, “Understanding how market power can arise in network competition: a game theoretic approach,” Utilities Policy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 139–158, 1999.
- P. Samadi, A.-H. Mohsenian-Rad, R. Schober, V. W. S. Wong, and J. Jatskevich, “Optimal real-time pricing algorithm based on utility maximization for smart grid,” in 2010 First IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications, 2010, pp. 415–420.
- M. Fahrioglu and F. Alvarado, “Designing cost effective demand management contracts using game theory,” in IEEE Power Engineering Society. 1999 Winter Meeting (Cat. No.99CH36233), vol. 1, 1999, pp. 427–432.
- S. Bose and E. Bitar, “Variability and the locational marginal value of energy storage,” in 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2014, pp. 3259–3265.
- F. Mauersberger and R. Nagel, “Chapter 10 - levels of reasoning in keynesian beauty contests: A generative framework,” in Handbook of Computational Economics. Elsevier, 2018, vol. 4, pp. 541–634.
Sponsor
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.