pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21062 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🧮 math.OC

Modeling Gaps in Hydropower Cascading System Models: A Systematic Review of Rule-Based Formulations

Quentin Ploussard , Lukas Livengood , Slaven Kincic This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords cascadinghydropowermodelingenergyphysicalreviewsystemsanalysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

A systematic review defines a 10-equation baseline for cascading hydropower models and documents widespread omissions of key physical relationships across 131 prior optimization studies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Cascading hydropower systems are chains of reservoirs and power plants where water released from one affects the next downstream. The authors first lay out a Standard Model with 10 equations that describe core physics: how inflows move through the system in space and time, how much water is stored at different elevations, how water height affects electricity generation, and rules that prevent operating the turbines in damaging zones. They then check 131 published papers that use mathematical optimization to decide when to release water and generate power. For each paper they record whether every one of the 10 equations is fully present, simplified, or missing. The review judges the models from the viewpoint of power-grid reliability rather than only water management. It concludes that mixed-integer linear programming with piecewise-linear approximations strikes the best balance between realism and the ability to solve the problems on computers. It also notes that most studies rely on expensive commercial solvers and that open-source high-performance solvers are rarely used, which limits reproducibility.

Core claim

The review makes a focused technical case for mixed-integer linear programming with piecewise linear approximations as the optimal balance between physical accuracy and computational tractability, highlighting recent optimal regression techniques that minimize combinatorial overhead.

Load-bearing premise

That the authors' 10-equation framework captures the full physical and hydraulic behavior of cascading systems and that evaluating papers solely against this baseline gives a reliable empirical measure of modeling fidelity across the field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21062 by Lukas Livengood, Quentin Ploussard, Slaven Kincic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Publication distribution by venue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Yearly publication trends 49, 50, 20] remain an important goal of these models. This evolution is likely driven by the increasing penetration of variable energy sources, which 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of mathematical modeling paradigms across the reviewed corpus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of numerical solvers categorized by commercial and open-source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The coordination of cascading hydropower systems represents a fundamental challenge in modern energy systems engineering, requiring a sophisticated balance between multi-reservoir physics, stringent environmental regulations, and dynamic market participation. As intermittent energy sources increase, the transition to high-fidelity hydropower modeling has become a core requirement for ensuring power system reliability, long-term energy resilience and affordability. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of 131 seminal articles through the exclusive lens of optimization-based approaches, intentionally omitting pure simulation and heuristic methods to focus on rigorous mathematical formulations. A generalized 10-equation mathematical framework is established as a formal baseline, capturing the full physical and hydraulic behavior of cascading systems, including spatiotemporal inflow routing, storage-to-elevation relationships, head-dependent power generation, and prohibited operating zones. Each article is evaluated against every equation of this Standard Model in a systematic census documenting which physical relationships are included, simplified, or omitted, providing an empirical measure of modeling fidelity across the field. Modeling simplifications are evaluated through the lens of grid reliability rather than water management performance alone. The review makes a focused technical case for mixed-integer linear programming with piecewise linear approximations as the optimal balance between physical accuracy and computational tractability, highlighting recent optimal regression techniques that minimize combinatorial overhead. Finally, a bibliometric analysis of solver usage identifies the near-absence of high-performance open-source solvers as a critical reproducibility barrier, and a promising avenue for broader adoption of high-fidelity cascading hydropower models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a systematic review of 131 optimization-based papers on cascading hydropower systems. It defines a generalized 10-equation 'Standard Model' baseline capturing physical and hydraulic elements including spatiotemporal inflow routing, storage-to-elevation relationships, head-dependent generation, and prohibited operating zones. Each paper is evaluated via a census of which equations are included, simplified, or omitted. The review evaluates simplifications from a grid-reliability perspective, makes the case for MILP with piecewise-linear approximations (citing recent optimal regression techniques), and includes a bibliometric analysis of solver usage that notes the scarcity of high-performance open-source solvers.

Significance. If the 10-equation baseline is accepted as a representative physical/hydraulic standard, the systematic census supplies an empirical map of modeling gaps that can guide future work toward higher-fidelity formulations suitable for power-system reliability studies. The focused recommendation for MILP+PWL, together with the solver-usage analysis, supplies concrete, actionable guidance for the community and highlights a reproducibility barrier. The review's exclusive focus on optimization formulations (omitting simulation and heuristics) is a deliberate and useful scoping choice.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract and §2 (Standard Model definition): the 10-equation framework is presented as capturing the 'full physical and hydraulic behavior,' yet the abstract separately identifies environmental regulations and dynamic market participation as core challenges. It is not stated whether minimum ecological flows, regulatory release rules, or market-bidding constraints are incorporated into the baseline equations or the fidelity census. Because the gap analysis and the MILP+PWL recommendation are evaluated through the lens of grid reliability, this completeness assumption is load-bearing; an explicit justification or extension of the framework is required to support the claim that the census measures modeling fidelity for operational grid use.
minor comments (2)
  1. The article-selection criteria and exact search strings used to arrive at the 131 papers should be stated with sufficient detail (including any post-hoc filters) to permit independent reproduction of the review.
  2. A summary table reporting the percentage of papers that include, simplify, or omit each of the 10 equations would improve readability of the census results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review, which highlights both the strengths of our systematic census and areas where additional clarification will strengthen the manuscript. We address the major comment below and commit to revisions that improve the justification of the Standard Model's scope without altering the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and §2 (Standard Model definition): the 10-equation framework is presented as capturing the 'full physical and hydraulic behavior,' yet the abstract separately identifies environmental regulations and dynamic market participation as core challenges. It is not stated whether minimum ecological flows, regulatory release rules, or market-bidding constraints are incorporated into the baseline equations or the fidelity census. Because the gap analysis and the MILP+PWL recommendation are evaluated through the lens of grid reliability, this completeness assumption is load-bearing; an explicit justification or extension of the framework is required to support the claim that the census measures modeling fidelity for operational grid use.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation of the Standard Model's scope requires explicit justification to avoid any ambiguity. The 10-equation baseline is deliberately restricted to the universal physical and hydraulic relationships (mass-balance routing, storage-elevation curves, head-dependent generation, and prohibited zones) that appear across all cascading systems and form the necessary foundation for any optimization model. Environmental regulations such as minimum ecological flows are typically implemented as additional inequality constraints on release variables or as modifications to the mass-balance equation, while regulatory release rules and market-bidding constraints affect the objective function or add binary variables for bidding decisions; these are jurisdiction- and market-specific extensions rather than alterations to the core physical equations. Our fidelity census therefore quantifies omissions of the physical baseline, which we maintain is a prerequisite for credible grid-reliability studies. The abstract's reference to environmental and market challenges describes the broader motivation for high-fidelity modeling, not the content of the 10 equations. In the revised manuscript we will (i) add a dedicated paragraph in §2 that defines the Standard Model as the physical core and explicitly lists how regulatory and market elements are incorporated as extensions, and (ii) include a short discussion of how the observed physical simplifications interact with these extensions under a grid-reliability lens. This revision directly addresses the load-bearing assumption while preserving the manuscript's focus on optimization formulations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: review proposes independent baseline for census

full rationale

The paper is a systematic literature review that synthesizes a 10-equation Standard Model as an externally motivated baseline for evaluating 131 prior articles on physical and hydraulic aspects of cascading hydropower. This baseline is presented as a generalized framework capturing listed behaviors (inflow routing, storage-elevation, head-dependent generation, prohibited zones) rather than being fitted to the reviewed papers' data, derived from their equations, or defined self-referentially. The census simply tallies inclusion/omission against this fixed reference; the MILP+PWL recommendation follows from observed gaps in that census. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renamed empirical patterns appear as load-bearing steps. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no reductions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the 10-equation framework is a complete and unbiased baseline for all relevant physics and that the 131 selected articles are representative of the optimization literature.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The 10-equation framework fully captures the physical and hydraulic behavior of cascading hydropower systems including spatiotemporal inflow routing, storage-to-elevation relationships, head-dependent generation, and prohibited operating zones.
    Invoked as the formal baseline against which all 131 articles are evaluated.
  • domain assumption Evaluating modeling fidelity through the lens of grid reliability rather than water-management performance alone is the appropriate criterion.
    Stated as the evaluation perspective in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1452 out tokens · 44523 ms · 2026-05-09T23:27:35.217271+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 139 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Department of Energy, Reliability,https://www.energy.gov/ topics/reliability(2026)

    U.S. Department of Energy, Reliability,https://www.energy.gov/ topics/reliability(2026)

    2026

  2. [2]

    Voisin, D

    N. Voisin, D. Bain, J. Macknick, R. S. O’Neil, Improving hydropower representation in power system models (summary of technical work- shop), Tech. rep., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR), Golden, CO (United States) (11 2020).doi:10.2172/1726280. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/bibl...

    work page doi:10.2172/1726280 2020

  3. [3]

    Kincic, S

    S. Kincic, S. Datta, S. Nekkalapu, D. Wang, B. Mitra, M. Vaiman, Potential impact of hydrological modeling on power system reliability, in: 2025 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2025, pp. 1–5.doi:10.1109/PESGM52009.2025.11225846

    work page doi:10.1109/pesgm52009.2025.11225846 2025

  4. [4]

    Kincic, S

    S. Nekkalapu, S. Datta, S. Kincic, D. Wang, B. Mitra, B. Mathew, Hydrological modeling impact on western interconnection frequency response studies, in: 2025 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2025, pp. 1–5.doi:10.1109/PESGM52009.2025. 11225344

    work page doi:10.1109/pesgm52009.2025 2025

  5. [5]

    Kincic, N

    S. Kincic, N. Samaan, S. Datta, A. Somani, H. Yuan, J. Tan, R. Bhat- tarai, T. M. Mosier, Hydropower modeling gaps in planning and operational studies, Tech. rep., Pacific Northwest National Labora- tory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States); National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR), Golden, CO (United States); Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls,...

    work page doi:10.2172/1922507 2022

  6. [6]

    P. Xia, C. Deng, Y. Chen, W. Yao, MILP based robust short-term scheduling for wind–thermal–hydro power system with pumped hydro energy storage, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 30261–30275.doi:10.1109/ ACCESS.2019.2895090

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    L. S. M. Guedes, P. de Mendonça Maia, A. C. Lisboa, D. A. G. Vieira, R. R. Saldanha, A unit commitment algorithm and a com- pact milp model for short-term hydro-power generation scheduling, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 32 (5) (2017) 3381–3390.doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2641390

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2016.2641390 2017

  8. [8]

    R. S. V. Teegavarapu, S. P. Simonovic, Short-term operation model for coupled hydropower reservoirs, Journal of Water Resources Plan- ning and Management 126 (2) (2000) 78–87.doi:10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9496(2000)126:2(78)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce 2000

  9. [9]

    J. W. Labadie, Optimal operation of multireservoir systems: State-of- the-art review, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 130 (2) (2004) 93–111.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2004)130: 2(93). 30 URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9496(2004)130:2(93)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2004)130: 2004

  10. [10]

    V. Lai, Y. F. Huang, C. H. Koo, A. N. Ahmed, A. El-Shafie, A re- view of reservoir operation optimisations: From traditional models to metaheuristic algorithms, Archives of Computational Methods in Engi- neering 29 (5) (2022) 3435–3457.doi:10.1007/s11831-021-09701-8. URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s11831-021-09701-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-021-09701-8 2022

  11. [11]

    Parvez, J

    I. Parvez, J. Shen, M. Khan, C. Cheng, Modeling and solution tech- niques used for hydro generation scheduling, Water 11 (7) (2019). doi:10.3390/w11071392. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/7/1392

    work page doi:10.3390/w11071392 2019

  12. [12]

    Taktak, C

    R. Taktak, C. D’Ambrosio, An overview on mathematical pro- gramming approaches for the deterministic unit commitment problem in hydro valleys, Energy Systems 8 (1) (2017) 57–79. doi:10.1007/s12667-015-0189-x. URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s12667-015-0189-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s12667-015-0189-x 2017

  13. [13]

    Thirunavukkarasu, Y

    M. Thirunavukkarasu, Y. Sawle, H. Lala, A comprehensive review on optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems using various optimization techniques, Renewable and Sus- tainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113192.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113192. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1364032123000485

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2023.113192 2023

  14. [14]

    L. Lu, W. Yuan, C. Su, P. Wang, C. Cheng, D. Yan, Z. Wu, Optimization model for the short-term joint operation of a grid- connected wind-photovoltaic-hydro hybrid energy system with cascade hydropower plants, Energy Conversion and Management 236 (2021) 114055.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114055. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114055 2021

  15. [15]

    Gauvin, E

    C. Gauvin, E. Delage, M. Gendreau, A successive linear programming algorithm with non-linear time series for the reservoir management 31 problem, Computational Management Science 15 (01 2018).doi:10. 1007/s10287-017-0295-4

    2018

  16. [16]

    Amani, H

    A. Amani, H. Alizadeh, Solving hydropower unit commitment prob- lem using a novel sequential mixed integer linear programming ap- proach, Water Resources Management 35 (2021) 1–19.doi:10.1007/ s11269-021-02806-6

    2021

  17. [17]

    jing Niu, Z

    W. jing Niu, Z. kai Feng, C. tian Cheng, Min-max linear pro- gramming model for multireservoir system operation with power deficit aspect, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage- ment 144 (10) (2018) 06018006.arXiv:https://ascelibrary. org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000977,doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000977. URLhttps://ascelibrary.or...

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000977 2018

  18. [18]

    M. S. Dogan, J. R. Lund, J. Medellin-Azuara, Hybrid linear and nonlinear programming model for hydropower reservoir op- timization, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage- ment 147 (3) (2021) 06021001.arXiv:https://ascelibrary. org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001353,doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001353. URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/ab...

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001353 2021

  19. [19]

    C. Su, W. Yuan, C. Cheng, P. Wang, L. Sun, T. Zhang, Short-term generation scheduling of cascade hydropower plants with strong hydraulic coupling and head-dependent prohib- ited operating zones, Journal of Hydrology 591 (2020) 125556. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125556. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022169420310167

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125556 2020

  20. [20]

    Yoo, Maximization of hydropower generation through the application of a linear programming model, Journal of Hydrology 376 (1) (2009) 182–187.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol

    J.-H. Yoo, Maximization of hydropower generation through the application of a linear programming model, Journal of Hydrology 376 (1) (2009) 182–187.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2009.07.026. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022169409004193 32

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol 2009

  21. [21]

    C. Chen, S. Feng, S. Liu, H. Zheng, H. Zhang, J. Wang, A stochastic linear programming model for maximizing genera- tion and firm output at a reliability in long-term hydropower reservoir operation, Journal of Hydrology 618 (2023) 129185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129185. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022169423001270

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129185 2023

  22. [22]

    L. Wang, B. Wang, P. Zhang, M. Liu, C. Li, Study on optimization of the short-term operation of cascade hydropower stations by considering output error, Journal of Hydrology 549 (2017) 326–339.doi:10.1016/ j.jhydrol.2017.03.074. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.074

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.074 2017

  23. [23]

    D. Zhu, L. Wang, W. Guo, J. Chen, L. Li, H. Bu, J. Zuo, H. Chen, Optimizing multi-objective operation of cascade reservoirs to enhance hydropower generation and fish spawning demand synergies during the pre-flood drawdown period, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 62 (2025) 102855, open access under CC BY 4.0; Available online 14 October 2025.doi:10.1...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2025.102855 2025

  24. [24]

    Q. Lu, P. an Zhong, B. Xu, F. Zhu, X. Huang, H. Wang, Y. Ma, Stochastic programming for floodwater utilization of a complex multi-reservoir system considering risk con- straints, Journal of Hydrology 599 (2021) 126388.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126388. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022169421004352

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126388 2021

  25. [25]

    Huang, H

    J. Huang, H. Qin, X. Yang, K. Shen, H. Yao, X. Chang, G. Li, Y. Gao, Framework for short-term hydropower cascade–station–unit integrated multi-objective scheduling: Considering unit safety and economic efficiency, Journal of Hydrology 653 (2025) 132756. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132756. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132756 2025

  26. [26]

    F. J. Díaz, J. Contreras, J. I. Muñoz, D. Pozo, Optimal scheduling of a price-taker cascaded reservoir system in a pool-based electricity 33 market, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 26 (2) (2011) 604–615. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2063042

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2010.2063042 2011

  27. [27]

    Z. Zhao, C. Cheng, S. Liao, Y. Li, Q. Lü, A milp based framework for the hydro unit commitment considering irregular forbidden zone related constraints, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 36 (3) (2021) 1819–1832.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2020.3028480

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2020.3028480 2021

  28. [28]

    Conejo, J

    A. Conejo, J. Arroyo, J. Contreras, F. Villamor, Self-scheduling of a hy- dro producer in a pool-based electricity market, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 17 (4) (2002) 1265–1272.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2002. 804951

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2002 2002

  29. [29]

    Hamann, G

    A. Hamann, G. Hug, Real-time optimization of a hydropower cascade using a linear modeling approach, in: 2014 Power Systems Computa- tion Conference, 2014, pp. 1–7.doi:10.1109/PSCC.2014.7038354

    work page doi:10.1109/pscc.2014.7038354 2014

  30. [30]

    S. Liao, J. Xiong, B. Liu, C. Cheng, B. Zhou, Y. Wu, Milp model for short-term peak shaving of multi-grids using cascade hydropower considering discrete hvdc constraints, Renewable Energy 235 (2024) 121341.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121341. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0960148124014095

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2024.121341 2024

  31. [31]

    Hatamkhani, A

    A. Hatamkhani, A. Moridi, J. Yazdi, A simulation – optimization mod- els for multi-reservoir hydropower systems design at watershed scale, Renewable Energy 149 (12 2019).doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.12. 055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.12 2019

  32. [32]

    Fleten, T

    S.-E. Fleten, T. K. Kristoffersen, Short-term hydropower pro- duction planning by stochastic programming, Computers & Op- erations Research 35 (8) (2008) 2656–2671, queues in Practice. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.12.022. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0305054806003224

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cor.2006.12.022 2008

  33. [33]

    jing Niu, Z

    W. jing Niu, Z. kai Feng, S. Liu, Multi-strategy gravitational search algorithm for constrained global optimization in coordinative operation of multiple hydropower reservoirs and solar photo- voltaic power plants, Applied Soft Computing 107 (2021) 107315. 34 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107315. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107315 2021

  34. [34]

    M. J. Aminabadi, S. Séguin, I. Fofana, Hybrid genetic algorithms and heuristics for nonlinear short-term hydropower optimization: A comparative analysis, Procedia Computer Science 246 (2024) 282–291, 28th International Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent information and Engineering Systems (KES 2024). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.09....

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.405 2024

  35. [35]

    jing Niu, Z

    W. jing Niu, Z. kai Feng, C. tian Cheng, X. yu Wu, A parallel multi- objective particle swarm optimization for cascade hydropower reservoir operation in southwest china, Applied Soft Computing 70 (2018) 562– 575.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.011. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S156849461830334X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.011 2018

  36. [36]

    Z. Fang, S. Liao, H. Zhao, C. Cheng, B. Liu, H. Wang, S. Li, An milp model based on a processing strategy of complex multisource constraints for the short-term peak shaving operation of large-scale cascaded hydropower plants, Renewable Energy 231 (2024) 120932. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.120932. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2024.120932 2024

  37. [37]

    C. Su, C. Cheng, P. Wang, An milp model for short-term peak shav- ing operation of cascaded hydropower plants considering unit com- mitment, in: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2018 IEEE Industrial and Commer- cial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe), 2018, pp. 1–5. doi:10.1109/EEEIC.2018.8494460

    work page doi:10.1109/eeeic.2018.8494460 2018

  38. [38]

    C. Su, P. Wang, W. Yuan, Y. Wu, F. Jiang, Z. Wu, D. Yan, Short-term optimal scheduling of cascade hydropower plants with reverse-regulating effects, Renewable Energy 199 (2022) 395–406. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.159. 35 URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0960148122013362

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.159 2022

  39. [39]

    Cheng, S

    X. Cheng, S. Feng, Y. Huang, J. Wang, A new peak-shaving model based on mixed integer linear programming with variable peak-shaving order, Energies 14 (4) (2021).doi:10.3390/en14040887. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/4/887

    work page doi:10.3390/en14040887 2021

  40. [40]

    n-reservoirs and multicascade

    H. Zhao, S. Liao, Z. Fang, B. Liu, X. Ma, J. Lu, Short- term peak-shaving operation of “n-reservoirs and multicascade” large-scale hydropower systems based on a decomposition- iteration strategy, Energy 288 (2024) 129834.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129834. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0360544223032280

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.129834 2024

  41. [41]

    N. Lu, G. Wang, C. Su, Z. Ren, X. Peng, Q. Sui, Medium- and long-term interval optimal scheduling of cascade hydropower- photovoltaic complementary systems considering multiple un- certainties, Applied Energy 353 (2024) 122085.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122085. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0306261923014496

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122085 2024

  42. [42]

    P. Wang, W. Yuan, C. Su, Y. Wu, L. Lu, D. Yan, Z. Wu, Short- term optimal scheduling of cascade hydropower plants shaving peak load for multiple power grids, Renewable Energy 184 (2022) 68–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.079. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S096014812101538X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.079 2022

  43. [43]

    S. Liao, Z. Liu, B. Liu, C. Cheng, X. Wu, Z. Zhao, Daily peak shaving operation of cascade hydropower stations with sensitive hydraulic con- nections considering water delay time, Renewable Energy 169 (2021) 970–981.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.072. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0960148121000793

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.072 2021

  44. [44]

    S. Liao, H. Liu, B. Liu, T. Liu, C. Li, H. Su, Solution framework for short-term cascade hydropower system optimization operations 36 based on the load decomposition strategy, Energy 277 (2023) 127685. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127685. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0360544223010794

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.127685 2023

  45. [45]

    Y. Liu, J. Zhou, C. Chang, P. Lu, C. Wang, M. Tayyab, Short-term joint optimization of cascade hydropower stations on daily power load curve, in: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Engi- neering and Applications (ICKEA), IEEE, 2016, pp. 236–240

    2016

  46. [46]

    Z. Wang, Y. Li, F. Wu, J. Wu, L. Shi, K. Lin, Multi-objective day-ahead scheduling of cascade hydropower-photovoltaic complemen- tary system with pumping installation, Energy 290 (2024) 130258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.130258. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S036054422400029X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.130258 2024

  47. [47]

    Hosnar, A

    J. Hosnar, A. Kovač-Kralj, Mathematical modelling and minlp programming of a hydro system for power generation, Jour- nal of Cleaner Production 65 (2014) 194–201.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.004. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0959652613005970

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.004 2014

  48. [48]

    J. Xie, Y. Zheng, X. Pan, Y. Zheng, L. Zhang, Y. Zhan, A short- term optimal scheduling model for wind-solar-hydro hybrid genera- tion system with cascade hydropower considering regulation reserve and spinning reserve requirements, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 10765–10777. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049280

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2021.3049280 2021

  49. [49]

    Hamann, G

    A. Hamann, G. Hug, S. Rosinski, Real-time optimization of the mid- columbia hydropower system, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 32 (1) (2017) 157–165.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2550490

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2016.2550490 2017

  50. [50]

    X. Wu, Y. Wu, X. Cheng, C. Cheng, Z. Li, Y. Wu, A mixed-integer linear programming model for hydro unit commitment considering operation constraint priorities, Renewable Energy 204 (2023) 507–520. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.006. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S096014812300006X 37

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.006 2023

  51. [51]

    Forknall, Optimal management strategies for a cascade reservoir system, B.sc

    C. Forknall, Optimal management strategies for a cascade reservoir system, B.sc. (honours) thesis, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia (September 2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    Cheng, S

    X. Cheng, S. Feng, H. Zheng, J. Wang, S. Liu, A hierar- chical model in short-term hydro scheduling with unit com- mitment and head-dependency, Energy 251 (2022) 123908. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123908. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0360544222008118

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.123908 2022

  53. [53]

    Hermida, E

    G. Hermida, E. D. Castronuovo, On the hydropower short-term scheduling of large basins, considering nonlinear programming, stochastic inflows and heavy ecological restrictions, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 97 (2018) 408–417. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.10.033. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.10.033 2018

  54. [54]

    S. J. P. S. Mariano, J. P. S. Catalao, V. M. F. Mendes, L. A. F. M. Ferreira, Profit-based short-term hydro scheduling considering head- dependent power generation, in: 2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, 2007, pp. 1362–1367.doi:10.1109/PCT.2007.4538514

    work page doi:10.1109/pct.2007.4538514 2007

  55. [55]

    J. P. S. Catalao, S. J. P. S. Mariano, V. M. F. Mendes, L. A. F. M. Ferreira, Nonlinear optimization method for short-term hydro schedul- ing considering head-dependency, European Transactions on Electri- cal Power 20 (2010) 172–183, published online 13 November 2008. doi:10.1002/etep.301. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etep.301

    work page doi:10.1002/etep.301 2010

  56. [56]

    D. Nguyen, Operating multi-purpose reservoirs in the red river basin: Hydropower benefit optimization in conditions ensuring enough wa- ter for downstream irrigation, Sustainability 15 (2023) 5444.doi: 10.3390/su15065444

    work page doi:10.3390/su15065444 2023

  57. [57]

    Catalão, H

    J. Catalão, H. Pousinho, V. Mendes, Scheduling of head- dependent cascaded reservoirs considering discharge ramping constraints and start/stop of units, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 32 (8) (2010) 904–910. 38 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.01.022. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0142061510000311

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.01.022 2010

  58. [58]

    N. A. Zadeh, S. Mousavi, E. Jahani, J. Kim, Optimal design and operation of hydraulically coupled hydropower reservoirs system, Procedia Engineering 154 (2016) 1393–1400, 12th International Conference on Hydroinformatics (HIC 2016) - Smart Water for the Future.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.509. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.509 2016

  59. [59]

    B. Xu, Y. Sun, X. Huang, P.-a. Zhong, F. Zhu, J.-y. Zhang, X. Wang, G. Wang, Y. Ma, L. Qingwen, H. Wang, L. Guo, Scenario-based mul- tiobjective robust optimization and decision-making framework for op- timal operation of a cascade hydropower system under multiple un- certainties, Water Resources Research 58 (04 2022).doi:10.1029/ 2021WR030965

    2022

  60. [60]

    Mohan, D

    S. Mohan, D. M. Raipure, Multiobjective analysis of multireser- voir system, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage- ment 118 (4) (1992) 356–370.arXiv:{https://ascelibrary. org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1992)118:4(356)}, doi:{10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1992)118:4(356)}. URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9496(1992)118:4(356)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(1992)118:4(356 1992

  61. [61]

    kai Feng, W

    Z. kai Feng, W. jing Niu, X. Cheng, J. yang Wang, S. Wang, Z. guo Song, An effective three-stage hybrid optimization method for source-network-load power generation of cascade hydropower reservoirs serving multiple interconnected power grids, Journal of Cleaner Production 246 (2020) 119035. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119035. URLhttps://www...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119035 2020

  62. [62]

    C. Kang, C. Chen, J. Wang, An Efficient Linearization Method for Long-Term Operation of Cascaded Hydropower Reservoirs, Wa- ter Resources Management 32 (10) (2018) 3391–3404.doi:10.1007/ s11269-018-1997-2. 39

    2018

  63. [63]

    Apostolopoulou, Z

    D. Apostolopoulou, Z. De Grève, M. McCulloch, Robust optimization for hydroelectric system operation under uncertainty, IEEE Transac- tions on Power Systems 33 (3) (2018) 3337–3348.doi:10.1109/TPWRS. 2018.2807794

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs 2018

  64. [64]

    J. P. S. Catalao, S. J. P. S. Mariano, V. M. F. Mendes, L. A. F. M. Ferreira, Scheduling of head-sensitive cascaded hydro systems: A non- linear approach, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 24 (1) (2009) 337–346.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2008.2005708

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2008.2005708 2009

  65. [65]

    Eusébio, C

    E. Eusébio, C. Camus, V. Mendes, Short-term value for the water stored in head-sensitivity power system reservoirs, in: 2011 8th Inter- national Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), 2011, pp. 275–280.doi:10.1109/EEM.2011.5953023

    work page doi:10.1109/eem.2011.5953023 2011

  66. [66]

    Kladnik, G

    B. Kladnik, G. Artač, B. Kozan, A. F. Gubina, K. Nagode, M. Dusak, Scheduling the slovenian cascaded hydro system on the river sava, in: IEEEAfricon’11, 2011, pp.1–5.doi:10.1109/AFRCON.2011.6072098

    work page doi:10.1109/afrcon.2011.6072098 2011

  67. [67]

    Huang, ReLU Networks Are Universal Approximators via Piece- wise Linear or Constant Functions, Neural Computation 32 (11) (2020) 2249–2278.doi:10.1162/neco_a_01316

    C. Huang, ReLU Networks Are Universal Approximators via Piece- wise Linear or Constant Functions, Neural Computation 32 (11) (2020) 2249–2278.doi:10.1162/neco_a_01316. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01316

    work page doi:10.1162/neco_a_01316 2020

  68. [68]

    J. P. Vielma, S. Ahmed, G. L. Nemhauser, Mixed-integer models for nonseparable piecewise linear optimization: Unifying framework and extensions, Operations Research 58 (2) (2010) 303–315.doi: 10.1287/opre.1090.0721. URLhttps://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/opre.1090. 0721

    work page doi:10.1287/opre.1090.0721 2010

  69. [69]

    Q. Ploussard, Piecewise linear approximation with minimum num- ber of linear segments and minimum error: A fast approach to tighten and warm start the hierarchical mixed integer formulation, European Journal of Operational Research 315 (1) (2024) 50–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.11.017. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2023.11.017 2024

  70. [70]

    CVaR Deviation off

    Q. Ploussard, X. Li, M. Pavičević, Tightening the difference-of-convex formulation for the piecewise linear approximation in general dimen- sions, INFORMSJournalonOptimization(2025).doi:10.1287/ijoo. 2025.0074. URLhttps://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/ijoo.2025. 0074

    work page doi:10.1287/ijoo 2025

  71. [71]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Lu, W. Hu, Y. Wang, L. Dong, J. Zhang, Co- ordinated optimal operation of hydro–wind–solar integrated systems, Applied Energy 242 (2019) 883–896.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.064. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0306261919304738

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.064 2019

  72. [72]

    C. Wang, P. Ju, C. Wan, F. Wu, S. Lei, X. Pan, T. Lu, Resilience-based coordinated scheduling of cascaded hydro power with sequential heavy precipitation, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 14 (2) (2023) 1299–1311.doi:10.1109/TSTE.2022.3205688

    work page doi:10.1109/tste.2022.3205688 2023

  73. [73]

    Belsnes, O

    M. Belsnes, O. Wolfgang, T. Follestad, E. Aasgård, Applying suc- cessive linear programming for stochastic short-term hydropower optimization, Electric Power Systems Research 130 (2016) 167–180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.08.020. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0378779615002576

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2015.08.020 2016

  74. [74]

    R. M. Lima, M. G. Marcovecchio, A. Q. Novais, I. E. Grossmann, On the computational studies of deterministic global optimization of head dependent short-term hydro scheduling, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems28(4)(2013)4336–4347.doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2274559

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2274559 2013

  75. [75]

    S. Feng, H. Zheng, Y. Qiao, Z. Yang, J. Wang, S. Liu, Weekly hydropower scheduling of cascaded reservoirs with hourly power and capacity balances, Applied Energy 311 (2022) 118620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118620. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0306261922000940

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118620 2022

  76. [76]

    Aminabadi, S

    M. Aminabadi, S. Séguin, I. Fofana, S.-E. Fleten, E. Aasgård, Short- term hydropower optimization in the day-ahead market using a nonlin- 41 ear stochastic programming model, Energy Systems (2023) 1–25doi: 10.1007/s12667-023-00618-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s12667-023-00618-8 2023

  77. [77]

    Barbosa, A

    A. Barbosa, A. Celeste, L. Mendes, Influence of inflow nonstationar- ity on the multipurpose optimal operation of hydropower plants using nonlinear programming, Water Resources Management 35 (05 2021). doi:10.1007/s11269-021-02812-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11269-021-02812-8 2021

  78. [78]

    Sutradhar, N

    S. Sutradhar, N. B. D. Choudhury, N. Sinha, Mixed integer non-linear programming for hydrothermal scheduling problem, in: 2015 Annual IEEE India Conference (INDICON), 2015, pp. 1–6.doi:10.1109/ INDICON.2015.7443262

    work page arXiv 2015

  79. [79]

    Achterberg, Scip: Solving constraint integer programs, Mathemat- ical Programming Computation 1 (1) (2009) 1–41.doi:10.1007/ s12532-008-0001-1

    T. Achterberg, Scip: Solving constraint integer programs, Mathemat- ical Programming Computation 1 (1) (2009) 1–41.doi:10.1007/ s12532-008-0001-1

    2009

  80. [80]

    Parallelizing the Dual Revised Simplex Method

    Q. Huangfu, J. A. J. Hall, Parallelizing the dual revised simplex method, Mathematical Programming Computation 10 (1) (2018) 119– 142.doi:10.1007/s12532-017-0130-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s12532-017-0130-5 2018

Showing first 80 references.