Structure-Aware Commitment Reduction for Network-Constrained Unit Commitment with Solver-Preserving Guarantees
Authors: Guangwen Wang, Jiaqi Wu, Yang Weng, Baosen Zhang
Organizations: School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
The growing number of individual generating units, hybrid resources, and security constraints has significantly increased the computational burden of network-constrained unit commitment (UC), where most solution time is spent exploring branch-and-bound trees over unit-hour binary variables. To reduce this combinatorial burden, recent approaches have explored learning-based guidance to assist commitment decisions. However, directly using tools such as large language models (LLMs) to predict full commitment schedules is unreliable, as infeasible or inconsistent binary decisions can violate inter-temporal constraints and degrade economic optimality. This paper proposes a solver-compatible dimensionality reduction framework for UC that exploits structural regularities in commitment decisions. Instead of generating complete schedules, the framework identifies a sparse subset of structurally stable commitment binaries to fix prior to optimization. One implementation uses an LLM to select these variables. The LLM does not replace the optimization process but provides partial variable restriction, while all constraints and remaining decisions are handled by the original MILP solver, which continues to enforce network, ramping, reserve, and security constraints. We formally show that the masked problem defines a reduced feasible region of the original UC model, thereby preserving feasibility and enabling solver-certified optimality within the restricted space. Experiments on IEEE 57-bus, RTS 73-bus, IEEE 118-bus, and augmented large-scale cases, including security-constrained variants, demonstrate consistent reductions in branch-and-bound nodes and solution time, achieving order-of-magnitude speedups on high-complexity instances while maintaining near-optimal objective values.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Workflow of the proposed solver-preserving commitment variable reduction method. An LLM generates a sparse commitment restriction set, a feasibility screening step removes inconsistent selections, and the resulting reduced UC problem is solved by a MILP solver with full constraint enforcement and certified optimality within the restricted space.
Method
Simplex iters
Branch nodes
Time (s)
MILP (no freezing)
3.61×106
3.28×105
1149.33
Random freezing ( ≈10% )
1.49×107
1.19×106
3004.75
LLM-Assisted ( ≈10% )
7.07×105
6.26×104
177.60
TABLE I : Comparison among plain MILP, random freezing, and LLM-Assisted.
System
Method
Avg Cost
Avg Time(s)
57-bus
MILP
1.12×106
5.85
LLM
1.12×106
4.74
RTS
MILP
3.30×106
1149.33
LLM
3.37×106
189.12
118-bus
MILP
1.67×107
9.06
LLM
1.70×107
6.35
TABLE II : Performance comparison of the baseline MILP and the LLM-Assisted commitment restriction without historical commitment information. Average objective value and solve time are reported over test instances.
System
Method
Avg Cost
Avg Time(s)
57-bus
MILP
1.12×106
5.85
LLM
1.12×106
3.44
KNN
1.12×106
3.91
K-means
1.12×106
3.84
RTS
MILP
3.30×106
1149.33
LLM
3.30×106
171.59
TABLE III : Average objective value and solve time of the compared UC solution strategies across different system sizes.
Parameters
MILP
K-means
KNN
LLM
Cost relative error (%)
0.00
0.36
<0.30
<0.30
Solve time (s)
1149.33
714.54
558.34
171.58
Time reduction (%)
0.00
37.83
51.42
85.11
Constraint reduction (%)
0.00
33.08
24.46
36.73
Variable reduction (%)
0.00
6.4
12.40
22.52
Node reduction (%)
0.00
22.50
37.23
66.41
TABLE IV : Comparison of different acceleration methods on the IEEE 73 bus system.
Parameters
10%
20%
30%
40%
Ave. Time
Original MILP (s)
1149.33
803.72
1517.87
1012.36
LLM-Assisted (s)
171.59
19.34
80.21
62.85
Reduced Rate (%)
85.11
97.59
94.71
93.79
Max. Time
Original MILP (s)
2678.98
853.44
2148.87
1337.36
LLM-Assisted (s)
228.27
27.17
138.78
98.06
Reduced Rate (%)
91.48
96.82
93.54
92.66
TABLE V : Time-related results of MILP and LLM-Assisted under different load noise levels on the IEEE 73-bus system.
Parameters
10%
20%
30%
40%
Original MILP (10 5 $)
33.01
32.47
34.17
34.72
LLM-Assisted (10 5 $)
33.01
33.44
35.47
35.89
Relative Error (%)
<0.30
2.99
3.80
3.37
TABLE VI : Cost-related results of MILP and LLM-Assisted under different load noise levels on the IEEE 73 bus system.
Fig. 2 : Comparison of 24-hour unit commitment schedules from the MILP baseline and the LLM-Assisted method. Rows correspond to generating units and columns to hours; white and black denote on and off states, respectively.
Fig. 3 : Solve-time comparison over 365 consecutive daily unit commitment instances. Each point corresponds to one 24-hour UC problem solved by the MILP baseline and the LLM-Assisted restriction method.
UCL Energy Institute, Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, University College London, Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0NN, United Kingdom