凸包（Convex Hull, CH）定价是美国电力市场采用的一种定价规则，并在欧洲引起关注。该规则旨在处理具有非凸性的市场，例如启动成本和最小开机停机时间等。在这样的市场中，市场运营商通过向发电机组支付补偿以弥补其机会损失成本，而凸包价格能够使总“机会损失成本”（包括实际损失和未实现的利润机会）最小化。这些价格也可以通过对原始混合整数规划问题的部分Lagrangian对偶进行求解得到，其中功率平衡约束被对偶化。计算凸包价格归结为最小化一组仅依赖于单个发电机组的非光滑凸目标函数之和，每个目标函数的次梯度可以通过独立求解较小规模的混合整数规划问题获得。本文中，我们评估了一系列一阶方法来解决上述双重凸包定价问题。我们测试了几种双重方法，其中大部分以前未曾用于凸包定价，包括束水平法的近似变体、具有三种不同步长策略的次梯度方法、两种最近提出的无参数方法以及结合平滑的加速梯度方法。我们在两个具有代表性的大规模现实实例集上比较了这些方法，并补充了与Dantzig-Wolfe列生成主方法的对比结果，后者已被证明在计算凸包价格方面效率较高。我们的数值实验表明，束水平法的近似变体和两种次梯度方法在所有双重方法中表现最佳，并且相对于Dantzig-Wolfe主方法具有竞争力。

Convex Hull (CH) pricing, used in US electricity markets and raising interest in Europe, is a pricing rule designed to handle markets with non-convexities such as startup costs and minimum up and down times. In such markets, the market operator makes side payments to generators to cover lost opportunity costs, and CH prices minimize the total "lost opportunity costs", which include both actual losses and missed profit opportunities. These prices can also be obtained by solving a (partial) Lagrangian dual of the original mixed-integer program, where power balance constraints are dualized. Computing CH prices then amounts to minimizing a sum of nonsmooth convex objective functions, where each term depends only on a single generator. The subgradient of each of those terms can be obtained independently by solving smaller mixed-integer programs. In this work, we benchmark a large panel of first-order methods to solve the above dual CH pricing problem. We test several dual methods, most of which not previously considered for CH pricing, namely a proximal variant of the bundle level method, subgradient methods with three different stepsize strategies, two recent parameter-free methods and an accelerated gradient method combined with smoothing. We compare those methods on two representative sets of real-world large-scale instances and complement the comparison with a (Dantzig-Wolfe) primal column generation method shown to be efficient at computing CH prices, for reference. Our numerical experiments show that the bundle proximal level method and two variants of the subgradient method perform the best among all dual methods and compare favorably with the Dantzig-Wolfe primal method.