Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Adaptive Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization for Capacity Planning of Hybrid Heat Sources in Electric-Heat Coupling Systems of Cold Regions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that making two Bayesian-optimization parameters adaptive—the hypervolume reference point and the noise standard deviation—lets capacity planners for cold-region electric-heat systems produce more diverse, more evenly…

desk verdict A plausible engineering extension of qNEHVI for cold-region heat planning, but the noise-modeling benefit is only demonstrated in-sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09280 v1 pith:YM7OXFRT submitted 2025-02-13 eess.SY cs.NEcs.SY

Ruizhe Yang , Zhongkai Yi , Ying Xu , Guiyu Chen , Haojie Yang , Rong Yi , Tongqing Li , Miaozhe ShenJin Li
show 2 more authors
Haoxiang Gao Hongyu Duan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.NEcs.SY
keywords HybridheatsourcesElectric-heatcouplingsystemsCapacityplanningMulti-objectiveoptimizationTimeseriesscenariosBayesianHypervolumeindicatorRenewableenergycurtailment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that capacity planning for hybrid heat sources in cold-region electric-heat coupling systems should be treated as a noisy multi-objective optimization problem, and that an adaptive Bayesian optimizer—AMBO—can solve it better than standard baselines. AMBO removes two user-set parameters that other Bayesian multi-objective methods require: the reference point used in the hypervolume indicator and the noise standard deviation of the Gaussian-process surrogate. Both are updated automatically from the data, and the final Pareto front is taken from the posterior mean rather than from noisy simulation outputs. The paper also proposes a time-series scenario generation method that clusters on the coupled statistics of heat load and net load, then rescales the selected days to match the original variability. If the claims hold, planners in cold regions get a more diverse and evenly distributed set of cost-versus-renewable-consumption trade-offs with far fewer expensive simulation runs than evolutionary search.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is AMBO, a Bayesian multi-objective optimizer built on the noisy expected hypervolume improvement acquisition function—the expected gain, under Gaussian-process posterior samples, in the hypervolume (volume of dominated objective space) of the current Pareto front. AMBO makes two components adaptive: the reference point $r = \hat{y}_{\max} - \hat{y}_{\min} \times 10\%$, recomputed from the worst observed objectives, and the noise standard deviation $\sigma_n$, re-estimated each iteration by gradient ascent on the Gaussian-process marginal log likelihood. In the final step the Pareto front is taken from the posterior mean $\mu_{D_J}$ rather than from the noise-corrupted observations $Y_J$. A second supporting mechanism is the time-series scenario generator: one day per heating-season month is chosen by K-medoids clustering on the mean and variance of heat load and net load, and the selected days are linearly rescaled via $S_{typ} = (S'_{typ})a + b$ to match the original curves' statistics.

What would settle it

Run the proposed scenario generation and AMBO on a held-out future heating season: select typical days from a training year, evaluate the final planned capacities against that year's full-season sample-average cost and renewable consumption, and compare the posterior-mean errors ($e_{ann}^B$, $e_{RES}^B$) with the raw typical-scenario errors ($e_{ann}^{typ}$, $e_{RES}^{typ}$). If the posterior-mean filtering no longer reduces the renewable-consumption error below the raw typical-scenario error, the paper's central noise-modeling claim would be contradicted. A second check: apply AMBO to a synthetic multi-objective benchmark with a known true Pareto front and known heteroscedastic noise; if its achieved hypervolume does not beat NMBO with optimally tuned parameters across many seeds, the adaptive-reference-point advantage is not general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the planner-chosen parameters in Bayesian multi-objective optimization—the reference point for hypervolume and the noise standard deviation—are not innocuous defaults: fixing them narrows and clusters the Pareto front, while adapting them to the observed data spreads it out. AMBO sets the reference point as the observed worst case minus 10% of the observed objective range, and re-estimates the noise standard deviation each iteration by gradient ascent on the marginal log likelihood of the Gaussian process. The final non-dominated set is computed from the posterior mean $\mu_{D_J}(x)$ rather than the raw objective values, which the authors show cuts the evaluation error of the renewable-consumption objective relative to the sample-average-approximation benchmark. The accompanying scenario-generation method, which selects typical days by K-medoids clustering on the mean and variance of heat load and net load and then applies the linear adjustment $S_{typ} = (S'_{typ})a + b$, reduces simulation error against the full-season benchmark compared with independent typical-day selection.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the typical days extracted from one historical heating season, and the full-season sample-average benchmark built from that same season, faithfully represent how the planned system will actually perform; the validation never tests on a truly unseen year, so the noise-modeling and scenario-generation benefits could shrink or vanish for future data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AMBO's adaptive reference point and noise standard deviation remove the planner-tuned parameters that can bias capacity planning, so the same optimizer can be applied to different regions or system sizes without manual recalibration.
  • Because AMBO needs far fewer operation-simulation evaluations than NSGA-II, the planning model can afford more detailed or longer-horizon simulations at equal compute.
  • Filtering the Pareto front with the Gaussian-process posterior mean instead of raw evaluations reduces the error in the renewable-consumption objective from over 10% to a more usable level, making typical-scenario planning results more trustworthy.
  • The cold-region scenario generator that clusters on coupled heat-load and net-load statistics yields lower average evaluation error than independent typical-day selection, so it better represents the real operating environment for planning.
  • Integrating all four heat sources—electric boiler, heat pump, TES, and combined storage heaters—produces a markedly wider and more uniformly distributed Pareto front than planning either generation-side or demand-side equipment alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same adaptive-noise mechanism could transfer to other expensive multi-objective design problems where the objective noise level is unknown and non-stationary, not just power-system planning; a natural test is applying AMBO to standard noisy MOO benchmarks with known ground-truth Pareto fronts.
  • Since the SAA benchmark uses the same historical heating season from which the typical days are drawn, the claimed accuracy gains are in-sample; a held-out-year test could either confirm the gains or show that the scenario-adjustment method overfits the clustering year.
  • The linear rescaling in Eq. (3) matches means and variances only, leaving higher-order temporal dependencies unadjusted; checking whether the Pareto front changes when autocorrelation or ramping statistics are also matched would clarify how much of the benefit comes from the clustering versus the scaling.
  • The claimed 'no predefined parameters' still leaves choices such as the 10% reference-point margin, the kernel hyperparameters, and the number of clusters; a sensitivity analysis over these residuals would show how much of the robustness is truly automatic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a capacity-planning model for hybrid heat sources (heat pump, thermal energy storage, electric boiler, and combined storage heater) in CHP-dominated cold-region power systems. The model has two objectives, annual cost and consumed renewable energy, and is evaluated through a time-series operation simulation. The authors introduce AMBO, an adaptive multi-objective Bayesian optimization algorithm that extends qNEHVI by updating the hypervolume reference point and the Gaussian-process noise standard deviation during optimization, and they combine it with a K-medoids-based typical-day scenario generation method with monthly mean/variance adjustment. Case studies on one heating season in northeastern China and on a larger provincial system compare AMBO against the original qNEHVI-style method (NMBO), PBO, and NSGA-II, reporting a more diverse and evenly distributed Pareto front, higher sample efficiency, and lower evaluation error relative to a full-season sample-average approximation benchmark.

Significance. If the reported performance survives the correctness and validation issues noted below, the paper would make a useful contribution. It transfers modern multi-objective Bayesian optimization to a relevant power-system planning problem, proposes a concrete mechanism for adapting the reference point and noise level, and adapts scenario generation to the electric-heat coupling that is central in cold regions. The formulation is documented in enough detail to be reproduced from the equations and tables, and the scalability study is a valuable addition. However, the central empirical claims currently rest on in-sample comparisons, single runs, and a weak NSGA-II baseline, so the strengths are mostly in the problem framing and algorithmic extension rather than in the demonstrated out-of-sample benefit.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V-B, Eqs. (39)-(41)] The error-reduction claim is in-sample. The sample-average approximation benchmark in Eq. (41) is computed by averaging over the same full heating-season data from which the typical scenarios S_typ are selected by K-medoids (Section V-A2) and then adjusted in Eq. (3). Consequently, e_typ and e_B in Eqs. (39)-(40) measure how well typical-day evaluation reconstructs the same season from which the typical days were drawn, not predictive accuracy on an unseen year. Since the noise term in Eq. (1) is motivated by future RES variability, the paper needs a temporal out-of-sample test, for example by generating typical days from one heating season and evaluating the planning schemes on a different historical year. Without such a test, the conclusion that the proposed planning results 'perform well under real operational conditions in cold regions' is not established by the evidence presented.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The upper bound in the CHP feasible region is self-referential: the inequality reads P^CHP_{i,t} ≤ P^CHP_{i,t} - c_cAB_i H^CHP_{i,t}, which contains the variable to be bounded on both sides and is therefore ill-posed. The intended bound is presumably P^CHP_{i,t} ≤ P^CHP_{max,i} - c_cAB_i H^CHP_{i,t} or the corresponding upper envelope. Because this constraint defines the operation simulation model used to generate every Pareto front in the paper, the equation must be corrected and the simulations confirmed to have used the intended feasible region.
  3. [Eq. (37)] The Gaussian-process posterior covariance is misprinted. The standard posterior covariance is k(x,x') - K(x,X)[K(X,X)+sigma_n^2 I]^{-1} K(X,x'), whereas the displayed formula has a plus sign before the final K(X_j,x') and appears to omit the multiplication by the inverse. As written, the expression is dimensionally inconsistent (the first term is a scalar and the additive term is a vector) and is not the covariance that Algorithm 3 would use to build the posterior in Eq. (36). Since the posterior distribution is the basis of the expected hypervolume improvement acquisition function, this needs correction.
  4. [Section IV-C1, Eq. (38)] The adaptive reference point formula needs clarification. For the stated minimization problem, a hypervolume reference point should be worse than all observed points, i.e., larger than ymax, but Eq. (38) sets r = ymax - ymin*10%, which is smaller than the worst observed value. If the hypervolume is instead computed on transformed maximization objectives such as -C_ann and P_RES, that transformation should be stated explicitly and the reference point defined consistently on that transformed space. As written, the formula appears to place the reference point on the dominated side of the Pareto front, which would bias the hypervolume computation and affect the core algorithmic claim.
  5. [Section V-A3 and Figs. 6-9] The comparison does not provide statistical support for the sample-efficiency and diversity claims. NSGA-II is run with a population size of 12, which is far below common practice and is likely to handicap it severely. The hypervolume curves in Figs. 7-8 and the error comparisons in Figs. 5 and 9 are reported without multiple independent runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests. To support the central claim that AMBO is superior in sample efficiency and Pareto diversity, please repeat each algorithm with several random seeds, use a more standard NSGA-II configuration, and report the mean and spread of the performance metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A3, Figs. 6-8] The algorithm names are inconsistent: Section V-A3 lists PBO, while Figs. 6-7 use NMBO and PMBO without defining these labels. Please unify the nomenclature and state which abbreviation corresponds to which baseline.
  2. [Section V-B] The statement that NSGA-II 'evaluates over four times the number of capacity allocation schemes in each iteration' is difficult to reconcile with a population size of 12. Please clarify the evaluation budget per iteration for each algorithm, since this directly affects the interpretation of the sample-efficiency comparison.
  3. [Section V-A2, Table II] For the comparison methods from [32] and the random method, four distinct days are drawn per month for the electric load, heat load, wind power, and solar power curves. Table II lists, for example, '20, 22, 13, 29' but does not indicate which day corresponds to which variable. Please clarify how a coherent daily scenario is assembled for these methods.
  4. [Fig. 9] The caption and text do not explain what the labels 'AMBO 1 2 3 4' refer to, whether these are four random initial noise standard deviations or four repeated runs, and no error bars are shown. Please describe the experimental design and add a measure of variability.
  5. [Nomenclature and references] The nomenclature contains typos such as 'Invement' for 'investment' and 'equimpment' for 'equipment'. In addition, references [18] and [19] appear to cite the same Applied Energy article under different author lists; please merge them or clarify the distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No formal circularity: AMBO is a fully specified GP/NEHVI variant tested against external baselines; the only self-citation ([28]) supplies a simulation model restated in the paper, and the same-season SAA benchmark is a validity limitation, not a definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The central AMBO derivation does not reduce to its inputs. The algorithm is specified by Eqs. (33)-(37) and Algorithms 1-3, with the adaptive reference point (38) and marginal-likelihood noise estimate (Algorithm 2) explicitly implemented and compared with the external BoTorch/qNEHVI baseline [29], PBO [21], and NSGA-II [18]. The operation simulation model is attributed to the authors' prior conference paper [28], but the present paper fully restates the constraints in Eqs. (8)-(32), so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The scenario-generation validation has an in-sample character: typical days are selected by K-medoids from a heating season and adjusted in Eq. (3) to match that season's monthly means and variances, and the SAA 'actual' values in Eq. (41) are averages over the same season. Figures 5 and 9 therefore show reconstruction fidelity of the same data rather than out-of-sample predictive accuracy on unseen years. This is a legitimate correctness and validation concern, but no equation makes the posterior mean or typical-scenario estimate equal to the SAA benchmark by construction; the error reductions are empirical, not definitional. Under the hard rule that circularity requires an exhibited reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction), no such reduction is present. Score 2 reflects one minor self-citation with otherwise self-contained external benchmarking.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The planning model rests on standard BO machinery (Gaussian processes, Matern kernel, qNEHVI) and on domain modeling choices inherited from prior work and the authors' own conference paper [28]. The scenario construction and noise modeling introduce no new physical entities, but they do introduce several hand-chosen structural parameters, including the typical-day count, the 10% reference-point margin, and the randomized initialization of noise variance.

free parameters (4)
  • Reference point scaling factor (10%) = 0.10
    Equation (38) sets r = ymax - ymin * 10%; the 10% fraction is chosen by the authors without derivation or sensitivity analysis.
  • Matern kernel hyperparameters sigma, nu, l = MLE
    Determined by maximum likelihood on the observed data each iteration (Section IV-A, Eq. (37)); standard but fitted.
  • Initial noise standard deviations for Algorithm 2 = randomized
    Algorithm 2 initializes sigma_n,m with a random positive number, so results depend on initialization unless convergence is robust.
  • Number of typical days per heating-season month = 1 day per month, 6 months
    Section II-C selects one representative day per month via K-medoids; this modeling choice is made by the authors and affects the scenario quality.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Gaussian process regression with a Matern kernel provides a valid surrogate for the two objective functions.
    Section IV-A, Eqs. (36)-(37) assume the objectives are well approximated by a GP with the specified kernel; this is a standard Bayesian optimization assumption but unproven for this particular planning model.
  • domain assumption The operation simulation model from [28] accurately represents the real electric-heat coupling system.
    Section III-B builds on [28] with added constraints; the paper does not compare against measured field data, so the model fidelity is assumed.
  • domain assumption One typical day per month for the six heating-season months is sufficient to represent the full heating season.
    Section II-C and Table II select a single representative day per month; the validation in Fig. 5 uses the same full-season data, so representativeness is assumed rather than independently tested.
  • domain assumption Simulation deviation can be modeled as independent Gaussian noise with a per-objective standard deviation.
    Equation (1) and Eq. (35) treat the deviation as additive noise epsilon; this is a common BO assumption but is not empirically verified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization for Capacity Planning of Hybrid Heat Sources in Electric-Heat Coupling Systems of Cold Regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YM7OXFRT

@misc{pith2026250209280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization for Capacity Planning of Hybrid Heat Sources in Electric-Heat Coupling Systems of Cold Regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YM7OXFRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09280}
}
read the original abstract

The traditional heat-load generation pattern of combined heat and power generators has become a problem leading to renewable energy source (RES) power curtailment in cold regions, motivating the proposal of a planning model for alternative heat sources. The model aims to identify non-dominant capacity allocation schemes for heat pumps, thermal energy storage, electric boilers, and combined storage heaters to construct a Pareto front, considering both economic and sustainable objectives. The integration of various heat sources from both generation and consumption sides enhances flexibility in utilization. The study introduces a novel optimization algorithm, the adaptive multi-objective Bayesian optimization (AMBO). Compared to other widely used multi-objective optimization algorithms, AMBO eliminates predefined parameters that may introduce subjectivity from planners. Beyond the algorithm, the proposed model incorporates a noise term to account for inevitable simulation deviations, enabling the identification of better-performing planning results that meet the unique requirements of cold regions. What's more, the characteristics of electric-thermal coupling scenarios are captured and reflected in the operation simulation model to make sure the simulation is close to reality. Numerical simulation verifies the superiority of the proposed approach in generating a more diverse and evenly distributed Pareto front in a sample-efficient manner, providing comprehensive and objective planning choices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The motivation for planning of the hybrid heat sources. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The influence of simulation deviation on the objective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relationship of the algorithms presented in the pseu￾docode of modeling the simulation deviation as a noise term are emphasized. A. Simulation and scenario settings 1) Parameters: The simulation model includes two CHP generators and one traditional generator, reflecting the need for combined heat and power systems to meet both heat and electricity demands. To enhance the system’s flexibility and accommodate the uniq… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The typical curves of electric load, heat load, wind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The hypervolume curves. result of the adaptive determination of the reference point, which allows AMBO to better locate the latent non-dominant points. In contrast, NMBO, which relies on pre-determined parameters, produces a less informative Pareto front. Without the f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average errors from different scenario selection methods. -8 -7 -6 104 8 10 108 (a) Pareto front of AMBO. -8 -7 -6 104 8 10 108 (b) Pareto front of NMBO. -8 -7 -6 104 8 10 108 (c) Pareto front of PBO. -8 -7 -6 104 8 10 108 (d) Pareto front of NSGAII [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Pareto fronts of the five cases under noiseless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average error compared to the SAA outcomes for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Pareto fronts of the five cases. D. Scalability of the Proposed Approach To further assess the scalability of the proposed approach and compare the optimization efficiency of the four MOO algorithms, a simulation was conducted using real-world data [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The Pareto fronts and hypervolume comparison with the large-scale model. The Pareto fronts of the three Bayesian-based MOO algo￾rithms are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement,

    S. Daulton, M. Balandat, and E. Bakshy, “Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement,” Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 2187– 2200, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Renewable energy and climate change,

    A. Olabi and M. A. Abdelkareem, “Renewable energy and climate change,” Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. , vol. 158, p. 112111, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Operation optimiza- tion on the large-scale chp station composed of multiple chp units and a thermocline heat storage tank,

    F. Lai, S. Wang, M. Liu, and J. Yan, “Operation optimiza- tion on the large-scale chp station composed of multiple chp units and a thermocline heat storage tank,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 211, p. 112767, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Transmis- sion line overload risk assessment considering dynamic line rating mechanism in a high-wind-penetrated power system: A data-driven approach,

    Z. Ding, K. Yu, C. Wang, and W.-J. Lee, “Transmis- sion line overload risk assessment considering dynamic line rating mechanism in a high-wind-penetrated power system: A data-driven approach,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1112–1122, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Flexibility improvement of chp unit for wind power accommodation,

    D. Zhang, Y . Hu, and Y . Gao, “Flexibility improvement of chp unit for wind power accommodation,” J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 731–742, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Dynamic economic dispatch with chp and wind power considering different time scales,

    Y . Song and L. Shi, “Dynamic economic dispatch with chp and wind power considering different time scales,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. , vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 5734–5746, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    A dynamic heat/power decoupling strategy for the fuel cell chp in the community energy system: A real case study in south of china,

    J. Li, W. Zou, Q. Yang, Z. Wei, and H. He, “A dynamic heat/power decoupling strategy for the fuel cell chp in the community energy system: A real case study in south of china,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 378–387, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Unlock the thermal flexibility in integrated energy systems: A robust nodal pricing approach for thermal loads,

    S. Lu, W. Gu, Y . Xu, Z. Y . Dong, L. Sun, H. Zhang, and S. Ding, “Unlock the thermal flexibility in integrated energy systems: A robust nodal pricing approach for thermal loads,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 2734–2746, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Improving operational flex- ibility of combined heat and power system through nu- merous thermal controllable residents aggregation,

    Z. Yi, Y . Xu, and C. Wu, “Improving operational flex- ibility of combined heat and power system through nu- merous thermal controllable residents aggregation,” Int. J. Electr . Power Energy Syst., vol. 130, p. 106841, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Optimal planning of inte- grated electricity and heat system considering seasonal and short-term thermal energy storage,

    J. Tan, Q. Wu, and X. Zhang, “Optimal planning of inte- grated electricity and heat system considering seasonal and short-term thermal energy storage,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 2697–2708, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Feasibility and performance study on hybrid air source heat pump system for ultra-low energy building in severe cold region of china,

    W. Xu, C. Liu, A. Li, J. Li, and B. Qiao, “Feasibility and performance study on hybrid air source heat pump system for ultra-low energy building in severe cold region of china,” Renew. Energy, vol. 146, pp. 2124–2133, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Electricity consumption optimization using thermal and battery energy storage systems in buildings,

    Z. Rostamnezhad, N. Mary, L.-A. Dessaint, and D. Mon- fet, “Electricity consumption optimization using thermal and battery energy storage systems in buildings,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 251–265, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Active distribution network expansion planning with dynamic thermal rating of underground cables and transformers,

    Y . Li, Q. Chen, G. Strbac, K. Hur, and C. Kang, “Active distribution network expansion planning with dynamic thermal rating of underground cables and transformers,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 218–232, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Two-stage plan- ning for electricity-gas coupled integrated energy system with carbon capture, utilization, and storage considering carbon tax and price uncertainties,

    A. Xuan, X. Shen, Q. Guo, and H. Sun, “Two-stage plan- ning for electricity-gas coupled integrated energy system with carbon capture, utilization, and storage considering carbon tax and price uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 2553–2565, 2023. IEEE TR...

    2023

  7. [14]

    Transportable energy storage system planning for mitigating grid vul- nerability,

    Y . Tao, J. Qiu, S. Lai, and Z. Y . Dong, “Transportable energy storage system planning for mitigating grid vul- nerability,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 4462–4475, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Enhancing operation flexibility of distributed energy systems: A flexible multi-objective optimization planning method considering long-term and temporary objectives,

    Z. Tian, X. Li, J. Niu, R. Zhou, and F. Li, “Enhancing operation flexibility of distributed energy systems: A flexible multi-objective optimization planning method considering long-term and temporary objectives,” En- ergy, vol. 288, p. 129612, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Multi- objective adaptive robust voltage/var control for high- pv penetrated distribution networks,

    C. Zhang, Y . Xu, Z. Y . Dong, and R. Zhang, “Multi- objective adaptive robust voltage/var control for high- pv penetrated distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 5288–5300, 2020

    2020

  10. [17]

    Multi-objective planning of distributed energy resources based on enhanced adap- tive weighted-sum algorithm,

    Y . Wang, Y . Xu, and H. Sun, “Multi-objective planning of distributed energy resources based on enhanced adap- tive weighted-sum algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4624–4637, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Multi-objective stochastic expansion plan- ning based on multi-dimensional correlation scenario generation method for regional integrated energy system integrated renewable energy,

    Y . Lei, D. Wang, H. Jia, J. Chen, J. Li, Y . Song, and J. Li, “Multi-objective stochastic expansion plan- ning based on multi-dimensional correlation scenario generation method for regional integrated energy system integrated renewable energy,” Appl. Energy, vol. 276, p. 115395, 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    Multi-objective stochastic expansion planning based on multi-dimensional correlation scenario generation method for regional integrated energy system integrated renewable energy,

    L. Yang, W. Dan, J. Hongjie, C. Jingcheng, L. Jingru, S. Yi, and L. Jiaxi, “Multi-objective stochastic expansion planning based on multi-dimensional correlation scenario generation method for regional integrated energy system integrated renewable energy,” Appl. Energy, vol. 27...

    2020

  13. [20]

    High-dimensional multi-objective bayesian optimization with block coor- dinate updates: Case studies in intelligent transportation system,

    H. Wang, H. Xu, and Z. Zhang, “High-dimensional multi-objective bayesian optimization with block coor- dinate updates: Case studies in intelligent transportation system,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 884–895, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Parego: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems,

    J. Knowles, “Parego: a hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 50–66, 2006

    2006

  15. [22]

    Multi-objective optimization for fast charging design of lithium-ion batteries using constrained bayesian optimization,

    X. Wang and B. Jiang, “Multi-objective optimization for fast charging design of lithium-ion batteries using constrained bayesian optimization,” J. Power Sources , vol. 584, p. 233602, 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    Home energy management system for a residential building in arctic climate of norway using non-intrusive load monitoring and deep learning,

    N. Kianpoor, B. Hoff, T. Østrem, and M. Yousefi, “Home energy management system for a residential building in arctic climate of norway using non-intrusive load monitoring and deep learning,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. , vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 5589–5598, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Convopf- dop: A data-driven method for solving ac-opf based on cnn considering different operation patterns,

    Y . Jia, X. Bai, L. Zheng, Z. Weng, and Y . Li, “Convopf- dop: A data-driven method for solving ac-opf based on cnn considering different operation patterns,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 853–860, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Robust load forecasting towards adversarial attacks via bayesian learning,

    Y . Zhou, Z. Ding, Q. Wen, and Y . Wang, “Robust load forecasting towards adversarial attacks via bayesian learning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1445–1459, 2023

    2023

  19. [26]

    Multi-objective distributionally robust opti- mization for hydrogen-involved total renewable energy cchp planning under source-load uncertainties,

    Y . Wang, M. Song, M. Jia, B. Li, H. Fei, Y . Zhang, and X. Wang, “Multi-objective distributionally robust opti- mization for hydrogen-involved total renewable energy cchp planning under source-load uncertainties,” Appl. Energy, vol. 342, p. 121212, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    An efficient power system planning model considering year-round hourly operation simula- tion,

    N. Zhang, H. Jiang, E. Du, Z. Zhuo, P. Wang, Z. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “An efficient power system planning model considering year-round hourly operation simula- tion,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4925– 4935, 2022

    2022

  21. [28]

    Evaluation method of renewable energy consumption capacity of integrated heat and power energy system in heating season based on time series production simulation,

    R. Yi, H. Yang, G. Chen, T. Li, M. Shen, J. Li, H. Gao, H. Duan, R. Yang, and Z. Yi, “Evaluation method of renewable energy consumption capacity of integrated heat and power energy system in heating season based on time series production simulation,” in 2024 IEEE 7th In- terna...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Differentiable expected hypervolume improve- ment for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization,

    ——, “Differentiable expected hypervolume improve- ment for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 9851–9864, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Botorch: A framework for efficient monte-carlo bayesian optimization,

    M. Balandat, B. Karrer, D. Jiang, S. Daulton, B. Letham, A. G. Wilson, and E. Bakshy, “Botorch: A framework for efficient monte-carlo bayesian optimization,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds....

    2020

  24. [32]

    Resilience oriented planning of urban multi- energy systems with generalized energy storage sources,

    W. Huang, X. Zhang, K. Li, N. Zhang, G. Strbac, and C. Kang, “Resilience oriented planning of urban multi- energy systems with generalized energy storage sources,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2906–2918, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Adap- tive characteristic modeling of long-period uncertainties: A multi-stage robust energy storage planning approach based on the finite covering theorem,

    J. Zhao, Q. Zhai, Y . Zhou, L. Wu, and X. Guan, “Adap- tive characteristic modeling of long-period uncertainties: A multi-stage robust energy storage planning approach based on the finite covering theorem,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, pp. 1–11, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.