Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 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

Surpassing legacy approaches to PWR core reload optimization with single-objective Reinforcement learning (2402.11040v2)

Published 16 Feb 2024 in cs.NE, cs.LG, and physics.soc-ph

Abstract: Optimizing the fuel cycle cost through the optimization of nuclear reactor core loading patterns involves multiple objectives and constraints, leading to a vast number of candidate solutions that cannot be explicitly solved. To advance the state-of-the-art in core reload patterns, we have developed methods based on Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) for both single- and multi-objective optimization. Our previous research has laid the groundwork for these approaches and demonstrated their ability to discover high-quality patterns within a reasonable time frame. On the other hand, stochastic optimization (SO) approaches are commonly used in the literature, but there is no rigorous explanation that shows which approach is better in which scenario. In this paper, we demonstrate the advantage of our RL-based approach, specifically using Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), against the most commonly used SO-based methods: Genetic Algorithm (GA), Parallel Simulated Annealing (PSA) with mixing of states, and Tabu Search (TS), as well as an ensemble-based method, Prioritized Replay Evolutionary and Swarm Algorithm (PESA). We found that the LP scenarios derived in this paper are amenable to a global search to identify promising research directions rapidly, but then need to transition into a local search to exploit these directions efficiently and prevent getting stuck in local optima. PPO adapts its search capability via a policy with learnable weights, allowing it to function as both a global and local search method. Subsequently, we compared all algorithms against PPO in long runs, which exacerbated the differences seen in the shorter cases. Overall, the work demonstrates the statistical superiority of PPO compared to the other considered algorithms.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. “A review on optimization methods for nuclear reactor fuel reloading analysis.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, volume 397, p. 111950 (2022).
  2. P. Seurin and K. Shirvan. “PWR Loading Pattern Optimization with Reinforcement Learning.” International Conference on Physics of Reactors (PHYSOR 2022), pp. 1166–1175 (2022).
  3. P. Seurin and K. Shirvan. “Assessment of reinforcement learning algorithms for nuclear power plant fuel optimization.” Applied Intelligence (2024).
  4. D. J. Kropaczek and R. Walden. “Large-Scale Application of the Constraint Annealing Method for Pressurized Water Reactor Core Design Optimization.” Nuclear Science and Engineering, volume 193, pp. 523–536 (2019).
  5. “SIMULATE-3 pin power reconstruction: methodology and benchmarking.” Nuclear Science and Engineering, volume 103(4), pp. 334–342 (1989).
  6. S. Lin and Y. H. Chen. “The max–min ant system and tabu search for pressurized water reactor loading pattern design.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 71, pp. 388–398 (2014).
  7. “In-core nuclear fuel management optimization for pressurized water reactors utilizing simulated annealing.” Nuclear Technology, volume 95(1), pp. 9–32 (1991).
  8. “ROSA, a utility tool for loading pattern optimization.” In Proc. of the ANS Topical Meeting–Advances in Nuclear Fuel Management II, volume 1, pp. 8–31 (1997).
  9. P. Seurin and K. Shirvan. “Pareto Envelope Augmented with Reinforcement Learning: Multi-objective reinforcement learning-based approach for Pressurized Water Reactor optimization.” In The International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering (M&C 2023). Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, August 13-17 (2023).
  10. H. Jain and K. Deb. “An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-point Based Non-dominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems With Box Constraints.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, volume 18, pp. 577–601 (2014).
  11. H. Jain and K. Deb. “An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-point Based Non-dominated Sorting Approach, Part II: Handling Constraints and Extending to an Adaptive Approach.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, volume 18, pp. 602–622 (2014).
  12. P. Seurin and K. Shirvan. “Can Advances in Artificial Intelligence Surpass Legacy Algorithms for PWR Core Optimization?” American Nuclear Society (ANS) Student Conference (2023) (2023).
  13. “Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2017 Special Session and Competition on Single Objective Real-Parameter Numerical Optimization.” Technical report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (2017).
  14. “A comparative study on multiobjective metaheuristics for solving constrained in-core fuel management optimisation problems.” Computers & Operations Research, volume 75, pp. 174–190 (2016).
  15. “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, volume 6, pp. 182–197 (2002).
  16. “Curriculum Learning.” ” Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning ACM (2009).
  17. “Reactor Core Loading Pattern Optimization with Reinforcement Learning.” In The International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering (M&C 2023). Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, August 13-17 (2023).
  18. “Optimization by simulated annealing.” science, volume 220(4598), pp. 671–680 (1983).
  19. F. Glover. “Tabu Search part I.” ORSA Journal of Computing, volume 1, pp. 190–206 (1989).
  20. J. H. Holland. “Genetic algorithms.” Scientific american, volume 267(1), pp. 66–73 (1992).
  21. “Evolution strategies- a comprehensive introduction.” Natural computing, volume 1(1), pp. 3–52 (2002).
  22. D. Bertsimas and J. N. Tsitsiklis. Introduction to Linear Optimization. Dynamic Ideas, Athena Scientific (2008).
  23. “Parallel Simulated Annealing by Mixing of States.” Journal of Computational Physics, volume 148(2), pp. 646–662 (1999).
  24. D. J. Kropaczek. “COPERNICUS: A Multi-Cycle Nuclear Fuel Optimisation Code Based on Coupled In-core Constraints.” In Proceedings of Advances in Nuclear Fuel Management IV (ANFM 2009). Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA (2009).
  25. “BWROPT: A multi-cycle BWR fuel cycle optimization code.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, volume 291, pp. 236– 243 (2015).
  26. D. E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts (1989).
  27. “Comparison of heuristic optimization techniques for the enrichment and gadolinia dsitribution in BWR fuel lattices and decision analyses.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 63, pp. 556–564 (2014).
  28. E. Israeli and E. Gilad. “Novel Genetic Algorithms for Loading Pattern Optimization Using State-of-the-Art Operators and a Simple Test Case.” Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science, volume 3, pp. 030901–1 (2017).
  29. “New genetic algorithms (GA) to optimize PWR reactors: Part I: Loading pattern and burnable poison placement optimization techniques for PWRs.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 35(1), pp. 93–112 (2008).
  30. C. M. N. A. Pereira and W. F. Sacco. “A Parallel Genetic Algorithm with Niching Technique Applied to a Nuclear Reactor Core Design Optimization Problem.” Progress in Nuclear Energy, volume 50, pp. 740–746 (2008).
  31. G. T. Parks. “Multiobjective pressurized water reactor reload core design by nondominated genetic algorithm search.” Nuclear Science and Engineering, volume 124(1), pp. 178–187 (1996).
  32. A. Erdoğan and M. Geçkinli. “A PWR reload optimisation (Xcore) using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 30, pp. 35–53 (2003).
  33. “Development of a BWR loading pattern design system based on modified genetic algorithms and knowledge.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 31, pp. 1901–1911 (2004).
  34. “Optimization of core reload pattern for PARR-1 using evolutionary techniques.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, volume 240, pp. 2831–2835 (2010).
  35. “Large-scale design optimisation of boiling water reactor bundles with neuroevolution.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 160, p. 108355 (2021).
  36. M. I. Radaideh and K. Shirvan. “Improving Intelligence of Evolutionary Algorithms Using Experience Share and Replay.” arXiv preprint arXiv:200908936 (2020).
  37. “BWR fuel reloads design using a Tabu search technique.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 31, pp. 151–161 (2004).
  38. “Huitzoctli: A system to design Control Rod Pattern for BWR’s using a hybrid method.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 38, pp. 2488–2495 (2011).
  39. C. N. Fiechter. “A parallel tabu search algorithm for large traveling salesman problem.” Discrete applied mathematics, volume 51, pp. 243–267 (1994).
  40. “Reinforcement Learning enhanced multi-neighboorhood tabu search for the max-mean dispersion problem.” Discrete Optimization, p. 100625 (2021).
  41. “Pressurized water reactor in-core fuel management by tabu search.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 75, pp. 64–71 (2015).
  42. “Quantum evolutionary algorithm and tabu search in pressurized water reactor loading pattern design.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 94, pp. 773–782 (2016).
  43. “A parallel tabu search algorithm for solving the container loading problem.” Parallel Computing, volume 29, pp. 641–662 (2003).
  44. “NEORL: NeuroEvolution Optimization with Reinforcement Learning—Applications to carbon-free energy systems.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, p. 112423 (2023).
  45. M. I. Radaideh and K. Shirvan. “PESA: Prioritized experience replay for parallel hybrid evolutionary and swarm algorithms-Application to nuclear fuel.” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, volume 54(10), pp. 3864–3877 (2022).
  46. M. I. Radaideh and K. Shirvan. “Rule-based reinforcement learning methodology to inform evolutionary algorithms for constrained optimization of engineering applications.” Knowledge-Based Systems, volume 217, p. 106836 (2021).
  47. “A nuclear reactor core fuel reload optimization using artificial ant colony connective networks.” Annals of Nuclear Energy, volume 35, pp. 1606–1612 (2008).
  48. K. Kobayashi and S. B. Alam. “Explainable, interpretable, and trustworthy AI for an intelligent digital twin: A case study on remaining useful life.” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, volume 129 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107620.
  49. “Physics-informed reinforcement learning optimization of nuclear assembly design.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, volume 372, p. 110966 (2021).
Citations (1)

Summary

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

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets