Should We Use Model-Free or Model-Based Control? A Case Study of Battery Control

Reinforcement learning (RL) and model predictive control (MPC) each offer distinct advantages and limitations when applied to control problems in power and energy systems. Despite various studies on these methods, benchmarks remain lacking and the preference for RL over traditional controls is not well understood. In this work, we put forth a comparative analysis using RL- and MPC-based controllers for optimizing a battery management system (BMS). The BMS problem aims to minimize costs while adhering to operational limits, by adjusting the battery (dis)charging in response to fluctuating electricity prices over a time horizon. The MPC controller uses a learning-based forecast of future demand and price changes to formulate a multi-period linear program, that can be solved using off-the-shelf solvers. Meanwhile, the RL controller requires no time-series modeling but instead is trained from the sample trajectories using the proximal policy optimization (PPO) algorithm. Numerical tests compare these controllers across optimality, training time, testing time, and robustness, providing a comprehensive evaluation of their efficacy. RL not only yields optimal solutions quickly but also ensures robustness to shifts in customer behavior, such as changes in demand distribution. However, as expected, training the RL agent is more time-consuming than MPC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/naps61145.2024.10741791
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Advanced Control Systems Optimization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.33

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Should We Use Model-Free or Model-Based Control? A Case Study of Battery Control

Sandeep Chinchali, Hao Zhu, Young‐Ho Cho, Mohamad Fares El Hajj Chehade
1 citations
Advanced Control Systems Optimization
0.33
article

Should We Use Model-Free or Model-Based Control? A Case Study of Battery Control

Sandeep Chinchali, Hao Zhu, Young‐Ho Cho, Mohamad Fares El Hajj Chehade
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) and model predictive control (MPC) each offer distinct advantages and limitations when applied to control problems in power and energy systems. Despite various studies on these methods, benchmarks remain lacking and the preference for RL over traditional controls is not well understood. In this work, we put forth a comparative analysis using RL- and MPC-based controllers for optimizing a battery management system (BMS). The BMS problem aims to minimize costs while adhering to operational limits, by adjusting the battery (dis)charging in response to fluctuating electricity prices over a time horizon. The MPC controller uses a learning-based forecast of future demand and price changes to formulate a multi-period linear program, that can be solved using off-the-shelf solvers. Meanwhile, the RL controller requires no time-series modeling but instead is trained from the sample trajectories using the proximal policy optimization (PPO) algorithm. Numerical tests compare these controllers across optimality, training time, testing time, and robustness, providing a comprehensive evaluation of their efficacy. RL not only yields optimal solutions quickly but also ensures robustness to shifts in customer behavior, such as changes in demand distribution. However, as expected, training the RL agent is more time-consuming than MPC.

The University of Texas at Austin (US)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 40%
Advanced Control Systems Optimization
0.33
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.