Course Notes For EE394V Restructured Electricity Markets: Locational Marginal Pricing
Course Notes For EE394V Restructured Electricity Markets: Locational Marginal Pricing
2.1.2 Objective
• Consider a function f : Rn → R that denominates the “cost” or lack of
desirability of solutions for a particular model or system.
• That is, f (x) is the cost of using x as the solution.
• The function is called an objective function.
• The operating cost of a generator, and the sum of the operating costs of all
generators in a system, are examples of objective functions.
f (x)
60
50
40
30
20
10
−10
5
5
0
Fig. 2.1. Graph of the
x2
0
x1 example objective func-
−5 −5 tion defined in (2.1).
2.1.4 Problem
• A minimization problem means to find the minimum value of f (x) over
choices of x that lie in the feasible set S.
Definition 2.1 Let S ⊆ Rn , f : S → R, and f ⋆ ∈ R. Then by:
f ⋆ = min f (x), (2.2)
x∈S
we mean that:
∃x⋆ ∈ S such that: ( f ⋆ = f (x⋆ )) and ((x ∈ S) ⇒ ( f (x⋆) ≤ f (x))). (2.3)
2
f (x)
100
80
60
40
20
0
5
0
Fig. 2.2. Graph of
x2
0
x1 function defined
−5 −5 in (2.4).
x2
5
4
Fig. 2.4. Contour sets
3 C f ( f˜) of function re-
peated from Figure 2.3
2
with feasible set from
1 Problem (2.6) super-
0 imposed. The heights
of the contours de-
−1
crease
towards the point
−2 1
. The minimizer
−3
3
2
−4 x⋆ = is illustrated
2
−5
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 x1 with a •.
x2
5
4
Fig. 2.7. Contour sets
3
C f ( f˜) of objective function
2 and feasible set for Prob-
lem (2.11). The heights
1
of the contours decrease
0 1
towards the point . The
−1
3
feasible set is the “half-line”
−2 3
starting at the point .
−3
3
3
−4 The minimizer x⋆ = is
3
−5
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 x1 illustrated with a •.
x2
10
6
Fig. 2.8. Points x⋆ , x⋆⋆ ,
5
and x⋆⋆⋆ that are fea-
x⋆ sible with respect to
4
x⋆⋆⋆ inequality constraints.
3
2.2.4 Summary
• For small example problems, inspection of a carefully drawn diagram can
yield the minimum and minimizer.
• For larger problems where the dimension of x increases significantly past
two, or the dimension of g or h increases, the geometry becomes more
difficult to visualize and intuition becomes less reliable in predicting the
solution.
• For larger problems we will use special-purpose software to find the
minimum and minimizer.
f ⋆⋆ 2
1 local minimum
and minimizer
0
−1
Fig. 2.12. Local min-
−2 not a local minimum ima, f ⋆ and f ⋆⋆, with
−3 corresponding local
⋆ ⋆
f −4
minimizers x and
local and global ⋆⋆
x , over a set S. The
−5 minimum and minimizer point x⋆ is the global
−6
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 x minimizer and f ⋆ the
⋆⋆ ⋆
x x̂ x global minimum over S.
f ⋆⋆ 2
1
local minimum
⋆⋆⋆
f 0
and minimizer
−1
local minimum
and minimizer
−2
x2
5
1
Fig. 2.14. Contour sets
of the function defined
0
in (2.4) with feasible
−1 set shaded. The two
−2 local minimizers are in-
dicated by bullets. The
−3
heights of the contours
−4
decrease
towards the
x1 1
−5
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 point .
3
f (x)
10
f (x)
10
8
Fig. 2.16. Linear in-
terpolation of a convex
7
function between points
6
never under-estimates
5
the function. (For clar-
4 ity, the line interpolating
3
f between x = 0 and
2
x = 1 is drawn slightly
above the solid curve:
1
it should be coincident
0
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 x with the solid curve.)
x2
5
f (x), φ(x)
10
f (x), φ(x)
10 Fig. 2.19. Sandwiching of
9 convex function between
8
two affine functions. The
first-order Taylor approx-
7
imation about x = −2
6
(shown dashed) is a lower
5
bound to the function.
4 The linear interpolation
3 of f between x = −3 and
2
x = −0.5 (shown dash-
dotted) is an upper bound to
1
the function on the interval
0
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 x {x ∈ R| − 3 ≤ x ≤ −0.5}.
1
∀x ∈ Rn , f (x) = x† Qx + c† x, (2.19)
2
• where Q ∈ Rn×n and c ∈ Rn are constants and Q is symmetric.
• The Hessian of this function is Q, which is constant and independent of x.
• If Q is positive definite then, by Theorem 2.3, f is convex.
∂2 f
∀x ∈ Rn , ∀χ ∈ Rs, ∇xx
2
f (x; χ) = (x; χ).
∂x2
∂2 f
∀x ∈ R 2
, ∀χ ∈ R, ∇xx
2
f (x; χ) = (x; χ),
∂x2
2 0
= ,
0 2
2 0
∇xx
2
f (x⋆ ; 0) = ,
0 2
∂2 f
∀x ∈ R2 , ∀χ ∈ R, K(x; χ) = (x; χ),
∂x∂χ
−2 exp(χ)
= ,
−6 exp(χ)
−2
K(x⋆; 0) = ,
−6
• where we observe that ∇xx
2 f (x⋆ ; 0) is positive definite.
2.9.3 Discussion
• Because of the non-convexity of the feasible set, iterative improvement
algorithms are usually insufficient to solve integer programming
problems.
• General-purpose algorithms for solving integer programming problems
can be extremely computationally intensive.
• Some particular integer programming problems can be solved efficiently.
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 λ example mixed-integer
λ ⋆
problem.