Accuracies of Optimal Transmission Switching Heuristics Based on DCOPF and ACOPF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers optimal transmission switching (OTS) to reduce generation cost by removing lines from service. A mixed integer program (MIP) has been proposed to solve the OTS problem, based on the linear direct current optimal power flow (DCOPF) model. Because of excessive computation times for large, real systems, the MIP model has been followed by some heuristics, also based on the DCOPF, to obtain near-optimal solutions quickly. However, the approximations in the DCOPF model may lead to poor choices of lines to remove from service. We assess the quality of line removal recommendations that rely on a previously published, DCOPF-based heuristic, by estimating actual cost reduction with the exact ACOPF model, using the IEEE 118-bus and 300-bus test systems with several demand levels. We also extend this heuristic to be based on the ACOPF and compare the quality of its recommendations to those of the DCOPF-based heuristic. The DCOPF-based heuristic performs very poorly in several cases, even leading to cost increases sometimes. There is a need for approximations to the ACOPF which are accurate enough to produce reliably good results for OTS heuristics, but fast enough for practical use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".