MILP Model for Optimal Day-Ahead PDS Scheduling Considering TSO-DSO Interconnection Power Flow Commitment Under Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a comprehensive framework for the optimal day-ahead scheduling of power distribution systems (PDS), based on a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model. The interaction between transmission system operator (TSO) and distribution system operator (DSO) is considered, where TSO informs DSO of the day-ahead forecast concerning the expected power flow (PF) commitment at the TSO-DSO interconnection points and the violation costs. We propose a MILP model to determine the optimal voltage and power settings of distributed energy resources (DERs), such as dispatchable distributed generators and energy storage units and optimal adjustments of capacitor banks controlled by current. The objective function includes the minimization of energy losses, voltage violations, power curtailment of DERs using volt-watt strategy, and violation of TSO-DSO interconnection PF commitment. Furthermore, we propose a method to estimate the degree of uncertainty in the PF commitment. Therefore, the proposed method can help achieve an optimal operation of the distribution system; in addition, the TSO can best model uncertainty at TSO-DSO interface points and thereby procure reduced amounts of resources to address these uncertainties. Numerical results obtained for a system based on real data highlight the several potential applications of the proposed framework.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".