pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05826 · v2 · pith:MSIM6DY2new · submitted 2019-07-12 · 🧮 math.OC

Towards multiobjective optimization and control of smart grids

Philipp Sauerteig , Karl Worthmann This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 22:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords multiobjective optimizationPareto optimalitysmart gridsload shapingenergy storageflexibilitytrade-off analysiscontrol
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pareto optimality resolves the trade-off between load shaping and flexibility in smart grid battery control.

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

The paper proposes applying multiobjective optimization to smart grids facing competing demands from renewable energy integration. It frames load shaping and the need to retain flexibility for auxiliary services as non-aligned objectives that must be balanced when controlling energy storage devices. A sympathetic reader would care because this framing offers a way to make explicit, quantifiable decisions rather than arbitrary prioritizations. The approach centers on examining the set of Pareto-optimal solutions to see how much one objective must be compromised to improve the other.

Core claim

We propose to make use of the concept of Pareto optimality in order to resolve this issue in a multiobjective framework. In particular, we analyse the Pareto frontier and quantify the trade-off between the non-aligned objectives to properly balance them.

What carries the argument

The Pareto frontier of a multiobjective optimization problem that trades off load-shaping performance against retained flexibility in battery storage.

If this is right

  • Control policies can be selected from the Pareto frontier to achieve explicit, tunable balances between the two objectives.
  • The magnitude of the compromise required between load shaping and flexibility becomes directly measurable.
  • Battery dispatch decisions gain a systematic basis instead of ad-hoc weighting of the two goals.
  • Grid operators obtain a visual or numerical tool for communicating the cost of prioritizing resilience over daily performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same Pareto-frontier analysis could be applied to other pairs of conflicting grid objectives such as minimizing cost versus minimizing emissions.
  • If the frontier proves stable under forecast uncertainty, it might support real-time receding-horizon implementations.
  • Embedding this framework in existing model-predictive control software would require only the addition of a second objective and a frontier-extraction routine.

Load-bearing premise

The competing objectives of load shaping and flexibility can be meaningfully formulated as a multiobjective optimization problem whose Pareto frontier yields actionable control decisions.

What would settle it

A concrete simulation or field test in which every point on the computed Pareto frontier fails to deliver a usable operating policy that simultaneously meets acceptable thresholds for load deviation and available reserve capacity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05826 by Karl Worthmann, Philipp Sauerteig.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representation of a network of Resident [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average power demand 1 I PI i=1 zi(k) (top) and its (absolute) deviation from the reference ¯ζ(k) (bottom) of the MPC closed loop with prediction horizon N = 48 (one day) w.r.t. peak shaving in comparison to the setting without energy storage. 2.3 Second Objective: Flexibility via Tube Constraints Besides flattening the power demand profile, another goal of the grid operator may be to provide flexibility t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the average power demand 1 I PI i=1 zi(k) and the time varying tube constraints (7). 2.4 Multiobjective Optimization Problem and MPC Scheme Combining the non-aligned (conflicting) objectives introduced in the preceeding subsections leads to the following multiobjective optimization problem min u∈UN  J1(u) J2(u)  subject to (1) and xi(n) ∈ Xi for all (i, n) ∈ [1 : I] × [k : k + N]. For this k… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of choice of weighting parameter κ ∈ [0, 1] on closed-loop performance. 3.2 Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) There are two natural approaches to solve the optimization problem (SMOP). The first one is to calculate a centralized solution by optimizing the overall system at once. Here, a large rate of communication within the network is needed and the CE has to know all data of every… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimal values gκ and hκ and the scalarized objective function ˜fκ introduced in (SMOP3) for all κ ∈ 0.05 · [0 : 20]. Remark 10. Note that, due to Proposition 9 (v) the Pareto frontier as depicted in Fig￾ure 6 (top left) can be regarded as a the graph of the function H : P1([0, 1]) → P2([0, 1]), H(P1(κ)) = P2(κ), where P is defined as in Proposition 9. 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pareto frontier in a (g − h)-plane (top left), open-loop perfomance (top right), convergence of the Pareto frontier (bottom left), and convergence of the cost residual |fκ− ˆfκ| (bottom right). The solid black line (bottom left) connects all solutions corresponding to κ = 0.5. are different definitions given by several authors [34, 35, 32]. In this paper, however, we focus on proper optimality in the sense… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualisation of the impact of the tube constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Calculation of the bound L0.2 in (15) by varying κ1 ∈ [0, 1] (left) and a visualization of the bound L as the maximal absolute value of the differnce quotients (top right) and of the dependency of Lκ from κ ∈ [0.05, 0.99] (bottom right). 5 Conclusions and outlook In this paper, we have analysed the Pareto frontier of a multiobjective optimization problem, in which a trade-off between peak shaving and provi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid uptake of renewable energy sources in the electricity grid leads to a demand in load shaping and flexibility. Energy storage devices such as batteries are a key element to provide solutions to these tasks. However, typically a trade-off between the performance related goal of load shaping and the objective of having flexibility in store for auxiliary services, which is for example linked to robustness and resilience of the grid, can be observed. We propose to make use of the concept of Pareto optimality in order to resolve this issue in a multiobjective framework. In particular, we analyse the Pareto frontier and quantify the trade-off between the non-aligned objectives to properly balance them.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using the concept of Pareto optimality within a multiobjective optimization framework to address the trade-off between load shaping performance and flexibility provision (for robustness and resilience) in smart grids that incorporate energy storage devices such as batteries. It states the intent to analyze the Pareto frontier in order to quantify these trade-offs and balance the non-aligned objectives.

Significance. The high-level suggestion to treat load shaping versus flexibility as competing objectives whose Pareto frontier can inform control decisions is consistent with existing multiobjective methods in power systems. However, because the manuscript supplies no model, no objective functions, no dynamical equations, and no numerical or analytical results, the significance of the contribution as presented is limited to identifying a possible research direction rather than advancing the state of the art.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The text asserts that 'we analyse the Pareto frontier and quantify the trade-off' between load shaping and flexibility, yet the manuscript contains no mathematical formulation of the objectives, no definition of the decision variables or constraints, and no derivation or computation of any Pareto set. This absence makes the central claim unverifiable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and the editor for the opportunity to respond. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The text asserts that 'we analyse the Pareto frontier and quantify the trade-off' between load shaping and flexibility, yet the manuscript contains no mathematical formulation of the objectives, no definition of the decision variables or constraints, and no derivation or computation of any Pareto set. This absence makes the central claim unverifiable.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the abstract overstates the manuscript content. The paper is a brief conceptual proposal outlining the potential use of Pareto optimality to address trade-offs between load shaping and flexibility in battery-based smart grids, without supplying models, objective functions, or any analysis. We will revise the abstract to accurately describe the contribution as proposing this multiobjective approach as a research direction, removing the claim that the Pareto frontier has been analysed or the trade-off quantified within the manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; proposal lacks derivation chain

full rationale

The manuscript is a high-level proposal to formulate load shaping versus flexibility as a multiobjective optimization problem and inspect its Pareto frontier. No equations, fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations appear in the provided abstract or reader's summary that could reduce a claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The central claim is a framework suggestion consistent with standard multiobjective control ideas and does not assert a theorem or empirical prediction that could be circular. This is the expected honest non-finding for a conceptual paper without internal derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is abstract-only; ledger reflects the minimal assumptions visible in the text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Load shaping and flexibility objectives are non-aligned and can be balanced via Pareto optimality in a multiobjective setting.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the motivation for the framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1023 out tokens · 22145 ms · 2026-05-24T22:17:54.024126+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

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. L. Ratnam, S. R. Weller, and C. M. Kellett. An optimizat ion-based approach for assessing the benefits of residential battery storage in con junction with solar PV. Pro- ceedings of the 9th IEEE Symposium on Bulk Power System Dynam ics and Control, Optimization, Security and Control of the Emerging Power Gr id (IREP), pages 1–8, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Worthmann, C

    K. Worthmann, C. M. Kellett, P. Braun, L. Grüne, and S. R. W eller. Distributed and decentralized control of residential energy systems incor porating battery storage. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 6(4):1914–1923, 2015

    work page 1914

  3. [3]

    Westermann, S

    D. Westermann, S. Nicolai, and P. Bretschneider. Energy management for distribution networks with storage systems — a hierarchical approach. Pr oceedings of the IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting - Conversion and De livery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, pages 1–6, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    D. E. Olivares, A. Mehrizi-Sani, A. H. Etemadi, C. A. Cañi zares, R. Iravani, M. Kaz- erani, A. H. Hajimiragha, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, M. Saeedifard , R. Palma-Behnke, G. A. Jiménez-Estévez, and N. D. Hatziargyriou. Trends in microg rid control. IEEE Trans- actions on Smart Grid , 5(4):1905–1919, 2014

    work page 1905

  5. [5]

    Parhizi, H

    S. Parhizi, H. Lotfi, A. Khodaei, and S. Bahramirad. State of the art in research on microgrids: A review. IEEE Access, 3(1):890–925, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Lotfi and A

    H. Lotfi and A. Khodaei. AC versus DC microgrid planning. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 8(1):296–304, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    R. R. Appino, J. Á. G. Ordiano, R. Mikut, T. Faulwasser, an d V. Hagenmeyer. On the use of probabilistic forecasts in scheduling of renewab le energy sources coupled to storages. Applied Energy, 210:1207–1218, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    D. W. von der Meer, M. Shepero, A. Svensson, J. Widén, and J . Munkhammar. Prob- abilistic forecasting of electricity consumption, photov oltaic power generation and net demand of an individual building using gaussian processes. Applied Energy , 213:195– 207, 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Palma-Behnke, C

    R. Palma-Behnke, C. Benavides, F. Lanas, B. Severino, L. Reyes, J. Llanos, and D. Sáez. A microgrid energy management system based on the rolling ho rizon strategy. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 4(2):996–1006, 2013

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Parisio, E

    A. Parisio, E. Rikos, and L. Glielmo. A model predictive control approach to microgrid operation optimization. IEEE Transcations on Control Systems Technology, 22(5):1813– 1827, 2014

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Worthmann, C

    K. Worthmann, C. M. Kellett, L. Grüne, and S. R. Weller. D istributed control of resi- dential energy systems using a market maker. IF AC Proceedings Volumes, 47(3):11641– 11646, 2014

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Grüne and J

    L. Grüne and J. Pannek. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control. Theory and Algorithms . Springer, 2nd edition, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design

    J Rawlings, D Mayne, and M Diehl. Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design . Nob Hill Publishing, 2017. 18

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    D. I. Hidalgo-Rodríguez and J. Myrzik. Optimal operati on of interconnected home- microgrids with flexible thermal loads: A comparison of dece ntralized, centralized, and hierarchical-distributed model predictive control. Proc eedings of the IEEE Power Sys- tems Computation Conference (PSCC), pages 1–7, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Braun, L

    P. Braun, L. Grüne, C. M. Kellett, S. R. Weller, and K. Wor thmann. A distributed optimization algorithm for the predictive control of smart grids. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 61(12):3898–3911, 2016

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Braun, L

    P. Braun, L. Grüne, C. M. Kellett, S. R. Weller, and K. Wor thmann. Towards price- based predictive control of a small-scale electricity netw ork. International Journal of Control, pages 1–22, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Braun, T

    P. Braun, T. Faulwasser, L. Grüne, C. M. Kellett, S. R. We ller, and K. Worthmann. Hi- erarchical distributed ADMM for predictive control with ap plications in power networks. IF AC Journal of Systems and Control , 3:10 – 22, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Majzoobi and A

    A. Majzoobi and A. Khodaei. Application of microgrids i n supporting distribution grid flexibility. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 32(5):3660–3669, 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    E. L. Ratnam, S. R. Weller, C. M. Kellett, and A. T. Murray . Residential load and rooftop PV generation: an Australian distribution network dataset. International Jour- nal of Sustainable Energy , 36(8):787–806, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Le Floch, S

    C. Le Floch, S. Bansal, C. J. Tomlin, S. Moura, and M. N. Ze ilinger. Plug-and-play model predictive control for load shaping and voltage contr ol in smart grids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 10(3):2334–2344, 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Baliyan, K

    A. Baliyan, K. Gaurav, and S. K. Mishra. A review of short term load forecasting using artificial neural network models. Procedia Computer Science, 48:121–125, 2015

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    A. R. Khan, A. Mahmood, A. Safdar, Z. A. Khan, and N. A. Kha n. Load forecasting, dynamic pricing and dsm in smart grid: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54:1311–1322, 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Y. V. Makarov, P. V. Etingov, J. Ma, Z. Huang, and K. Subba rao. Incorporating uncertainty of wind power generation forecast into power sy stem operation, dispatch, and unit commitment procedures. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , 2(4):433– 442, 2011

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    C. Wan, Z. Xu, P. Pinson, Z. Y. Dong, and K. P. Wong. Probab ilistic forecasting of wind power generation using extreme learning machine. IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, 29(3):1033–1044, 2014

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Golestaneh, P

    F. Golestaneh, P. Pinson, and H. B. Gooi. Very short-ter m nonparametric probabilistic forecasting of renewable energy generation—with applicati on to solar energy. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 31(5):3850–3863, 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Antonanzas, N

    J. Antonanzas, N. Osorio, R. Escobar, R. Urraca, F.J. Ma rtinez-de Pison, and F. Antonanzas-Torres. Review of photovoltaic power foreca sting. Solar Energy, 136:78– 111, 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    J. Jahn. Vector Optimization - Theory, Applications, and Extensions . Springer, 2004

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Grüne and M

    L. Grüne and M. Stieler. Performance guarantees for mul tiobjective model predictive control. Proceedings of the 56th IEEE Annual Conference on D ecision and Control (CDC), pages 5545–5550, 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Eichfelder

    G. Eichfelder. Adaptive scalarization methods in multiobjective optimiza tion. Springer, 2008. 19

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Braun, P

    P. Braun, P. Sauerteig, and K. Worthmann. Distributed o ptimization based control on the example of microgrids. In M. J. Blondin, P. M. Pardalos, a nd J. S. Sáez, editors, Computational Intelligence and Optimization Methods for Co ntrol Engineering, volume 150 of Springer Optimization and Its Applications . Springer International Publishing,

    work page

  31. [31]

    D. G. Luenberger. Linear and nonlinear programming , volume 2. Springer, 1984

    work page 1984

  32. [32]

    M. Ehrgott. Multicriteria Optimization . Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    D. T. Luc. Theory of Vector Optimization . Springer, 1988

    work page 1988

  34. [34]

    H. P. Benson. On a domination property for vector maximi zation with respect to cones. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 39(1):125–132, Jan 1983

    work page 1983

  35. [35]

    Sawaragi, H

    Y. Sawaragi, H. Nakayama, and T. Tanino. Theory of Multiobjective Optimization . Academic Press, Inc., 1985

    work page 1985

  36. [36]

    Braun, L

    P. Braun, L. Grüne, C. M. Kellett, S. R. Weller, and K. Wor thmann. Model Predictive Control of Residential Energy Systems Using Energy Storage and Controllable Loads. In G. Russo, V. Capasso, G. Nicosia, and V. Romano, editors, Progress in Industrial Mathematics at ECMI 2014 , volume 22 of Mathematics in Industry , pages 617–623. Springer International P...

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    M. C. Mabel and E. Fernandez. Analysis of wind power gene ration and prediction using ANN: A case study. Renewable Energy, (33):986–992, 2008

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    S. K. H. Chow, E. W. M. Lee, and D. H. W. Li. Short-term pred iction of photovoltaic energy generation by intelligent approach. Energy and Buildings , pages 660–667, 2012

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Faulwasser, A

    T. Faulwasser, A. Engelmann, T. Mühlpfordt, and V. Hage nmeyer. Optimal power flow: an introduction to predictive, distributed and stocha stic control challenges. at- Automatisierungstechnik, 66(7):573–589, 2018. 20

    work page 2018