Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Stable Relay Learning Optimization Approach for Fast Power System Production Cost Minimization Simulation (2312.11896v1)

Published 19 Dec 2023 in eess.SY and cs.SY

Abstract: Production cost minimization (PCM) simulation is commonly employed for assessing the operational efficiency, economic viability, and reliability, providing valuable insights for power system planning and operations. However, solving a PCM problem is time-consuming, consisting of numerous binary variables for simulation horizon extending over months and years. This hinders rapid assessment of modern energy systems with diverse planning requirements. Existing methods for accelerating PCM tend to sacrifice accuracy for speed. In this paper, we propose a stable relay learning optimization (s-RLO) approach within the Branch and Bound (B&B) algorithm. The proposed approach offers rapid and stable performance, and ensures optimal solutions. The two-stage s-RLO involves an imitation learning (IL) phase for accurate policy initialization and a reinforcement learning (RL) phase for time-efficient fine-tuning. When implemented on the popular SCIP solver, s-RLO returns the optimal solution up to 2 times faster than the default relpscost rule and 1.4 times faster than IL, or exhibits a smaller gap at the predefined time limit. The proposed approach shows stable performance, reducing fluctuations by approximately 50% compared with IL. The efficacy of the proposed s-RLO approach is supported by numerical results.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. N. Zhang, H. Jiang, E. Du, Z. Zhuo, P. Wang, Z. Wang and Y. Zhang, “An Efficient Power System Planning Model Considering Year-round Hourly Operation Simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4925-4935, 2022.
  2. X. Li, Q. Zhai, J. Zhou and X. Guan, “A Variable Reduction Method for Large-Scale Unit Commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 261–272, 2020.
  3. M. Zhang, Z. Yang, W. Lin, J. Yu, W. Dai and E. Du, “Enhancing economics of power systems through fast unit commitment with high time resolution,” Appl. Energy, vol. 281, pp. 116051, 2021.
  4. M.Eslami, H. A. Moghadam, H. Zayandehroodi and N. Ghadimi, “A new formulation to reduce the number of variables and constraints to expedite SCUC in bulky power systems,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, india section a: physical sciences, vol. 89, pp. 311-321, 2019.
  5. Y. Yin, C. He, T. Liu and L. Wu, “Risk-Averse Stochastic Midterm Scheduling of Thermal-Hydro-Wind System: A Network-Constrained Clustered Unit Commitment Approach,” IEEE. Sustain. Energy, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1293-1304, 2022.
  6. J. Meus, K. Poncelet and E. Delarue, “Applicability of a Clustered Unit Commitment Model in Power System Modeling,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 2195-2204, 2018.
  7. C. Feng, C. Shao, X. Wang, “CSP clustering in unit commitment for power system production cost modeling,” Renew. Energ., vol. 168, pp. 1217-1228, 2021.
  8. N. Zhang, H. Jiang, E. Du, Z. Zhuo, P. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, “An Efficient Power System Planning Model Considering Year-Round Hourly Operation Simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4925-4935, 2022.
  9. B. Hua, R. Baldick and J. Wang, “Representing Operational Flexibility in Generation Expansion Planning Through Convex Relaxation of Unit Commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 2272-2281, 2018.
  10. X. Sun, P. B. Luh, M. A. Bragin, Y. Chen, J. Wan and F. Wang, “A Novel Decomposition and Coordination Approach for Large Day-Ahead Unit Commitment With Combined Cycle Units,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 5297-5308, 2018.
  11. M. Qu, T. Ding, C. Mu, X. Zhang, K. Pan and M. Shahidehpour, “Linearization Method for Large-Scale Hydro-Thermal Security-Constrained Unit Commitment,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., Early Access.
  12. C. Barrows, M. Hummon, W. Jones, and E. Hale, “Time domain partitioning of electricity production cost simulations,” United States: N. p., 2014.
  13. T. Xu and N. Zhang, “Coordinated Operation of Concentrated Solar Power and Wind Resources for the Provision of Energy and Reserve Services,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1260–1271, 2017.
  14. S. Malekshah and J. Ansari, “A novel decentralized method based on the system engineering concept for reliability‐security constraint unit commitment in restructured power environment,” Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 703-726, 2021.
  15. S. Gao, C. Xiang, M. Yu, K. T. Tan and T. H. Lee, “Online Optimal Power Scheduling of a Microgrid via Imitation Learning,” IEEE Trans Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 861-876, 2022.
  16. T. Wu, Y. J. Angela Zhang, and S. Wang, “Deep learning to optimize: security-constrained unit commitment with uncertain wind power generation and BESSs,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.231-240, 2022.
  17. L. Sang, Y. Xu and H. Sun, “Ensemble Provably Robust Learn-to-Optimize Approach for Security-Constrained Unit Commitment,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Early Access.
  18. F. Mohammadi, M. Sahraei-Ardakani, D. N. Trakas and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Machine Learning Assisted Stochastic Unit Commitment During Hurricanes With Predictable Line Outages,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 5131-5142, 2021.
  19. A. V. Ramesh and X. Li, “Machine Learning Assisted Model Reduction for Security-Constrained Unit Commitment,” 2022 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, pp. 1-6, 2022.
  20. K. Kim, A. Botterud and F. Qiu, “Temporal Decomposition for Improved Unit Commitment in Power System Production Cost Modeling,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 5276-5287, 2018.
  21. G. Gamrath, T. Fischer, T. Gally, A. M. Gleixner, G. Hendel, T. Koch, S. J. Maher, M. Miltenberger, B. Muller, M. E. Pfetsch, ¨C. Puchert, D. Rehfeldt, S. Schenker, R. Schwarz, F. Serrano, Y. Shinano, S. Vigerske, D. Weninger, M. Winkler, J. T. Witt, and J. Witzig, “The SCIP Optimization Suite 3.2,” Takustr.7, 14195 Berlin, Tech. Rep., 2016.
  22. L Huang, X Chen, W Huo, J Wang, F Zhang, B Bai and L Shi, “Branch and bound in mixed integer linear programming problems: A survey of techniques and trends,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.06257, 2021.
  23. V. Nair, S. Bartunov, F. Gimeno, et al, “Solving mixed integer programs using neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13349, 2020.
  24. A. Lodi and G. Zarpellon, “On learning and branching: a survey,” Top, vol. 25, pp. 207-236, 2017.
  25. M. Huang, L. Huang, Y. Zhong, et al, “MILP Acceleration: A Survey from Perspectives of Simplex Initialization and Learning-Based Branch and Bound,” J. Oper. Res. Soc. China, pp. 1-55, 2023.
  26. Q. Hu, Z. Guo and F. Li, “Imitation Learning Based Fast Power System Production Cost Minimization Simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 2951-2954, 2023.
  27. H. He, H. Daume III and JM Eisner, “Learning to search in branch and bound algorithms,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 27, 2014.
  28. G. Zarpellon, J. Jo, A. Lodi, and Y. Bengio, “Parameterizing Branchand-Bound Search Trees to Learn Branching Policies,” AAAI, vol. 35, no.5, pp. 3931–3939, 2021.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now