Tight and Compact Data-Driven Linear Relaxations for Constraint Screening in Unit Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The daily operation of real-world power systems and their underlying markets relies on the timely solution of the unit commitment problem. However, given its computational complexity, several optimization-based methods have been proposed to lighten its problem formulation by removing redundant line flow constraints. These approaches often ignore the spatial couplings of renewable generation and demand, which have an inherent impact of market outcomes. Moreover, the elimination procedures primarily focus on the feasible region and exclude how the problem's objective function plays a role here. To address these pitfalls, we move to rule outredundantandinactiveconstraints over a tight linear programming relaxation of the original unit commitment feasibility region by adding valid inequality constraints. We extend the optimization-based approach calledumbrella constraint discoverythrough the enforcement of a consistency logic on the set of constraints by adding the proposed inequality constraints to the formulation. Hence, we reduce the conservativeness of the screening approach using the available historical data and thus lead to a tighter unit commitment formulation. Numerical tests are performed on standard test networks to substantiate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".