add limit to pst range for sensi changes #758
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bqth29
reviewed
May 5, 2023
...ommunity/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/fillers/CoreProblemFiller.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ommunity/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/fillers/CoreProblemFiller.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Thomas Bouquet <63302082+bqth29@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Bouquet <63302082+bqth29@users.noreply.github.com>
pet-mit
requested changes
May 26, 2023
...misation/rao-api/src/main/java/com/farao_community/farao/rao_api/RaoParametersConstants.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...main/java/com/farao_community/farao/rao_api/json/JsonRangeActionsOptimizationParameters.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...in/java/com/farao_community/farao/rao_api/parameters/RangeActionsOptimizationParameters.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...c/main/java/com/farao_community/farao/search_tree_rao/commons/parameters/TreeParameters.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
63
to
65
| public boolean getCapPstVariation() { | ||
| return capPstVariation; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do you really need a public getter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I use it in 2 different test packages, that is why i made it public. But i do not understand why is this an issue as there are other public getters in the same class.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we usually avoid exposing methods that are not needed in the main part of the code. this makes the design of the classes cleaner.
If you need to test the value, consider another way, or at least making the getter private package. If it's not possible, then you can keep the getter, it's not a big issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I use this method in Leaf.java which doesn't belong to the same package so i left it public (as getStopCriterion, getLeavesInParallel etc. that are used in SearchTree.java)
...unity/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/linear_problem/LinearProblem.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ommunity/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/fillers/CoreProblemFiller.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/linear_problem/LinearProblemIdGenerator.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/parameters/IteratingLinearOptimizerParameters.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ommunity/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/fillers/CoreProblemFiller.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pet-mit
added
the
PR: waiting-for-correction
pet-mit
requested changes
Jun 2, 2023
...misation/rao-api/src/main/java/com/farao_community/farao/rao_api/RaoParametersConstants.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...main/java/com/farao_community/farao/rao_api/json/JsonRangeActionsOptimizationParameters.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...c/main/java/com/farao_community/farao/search_tree_rao/commons/parameters/TreeParameters.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...community/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/IteratingLinearOptimizer.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...community/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/IteratingLinearOptimizer.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...unity/farao/search_tree_rao/linear_optimisation/algorithms/linear_problem/LinearProblem.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pet-mit
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
Feature
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
The Rao currently assumes that the impact of a PST on a CNEC is linear. But in AC mode, this approximation is not true.
Therefore, the MIP can choose a solution which is in fact worse than the previous iteration. Currently, when this happens the MIP stops and keeps the best iteration (the last one).
What is the new behavior?
This PR allows the MIP to continue even though it found a worse solution. It keeps in mind the best solution and continue until it reaches max_iteration.
Moreover, we diminish the pst relative variation at each iteration to avoid the MIP to behave as seen on the left picture below.
The factor 2/3 has been chosen to allow, if needed, the PST to come back to its initial tap. Here is an example of the new behavior:
The PST has 32 taps (-16 to +16). In initial state, its tap position is -16. After the 1st iteration, its tap position is +16 and the MIP has worsen the result. It will run 2nd iteration but for this iteration the PST can only go from tap -5.3 (tap 16 - 32 taps * 2/3) to tap +16. And for the next iterations, its admissible range will shrink to : previous iteration tap +- 32 taps * (2/3)^current iteration number.