A Bilevel Optimization Approach to Decide the Feasibility of Bookings in the European Gas Market
(2021)
The European gas market is organized as a so-called entry-exit system with the main goal to decouple transport and trading. To this end, gas traders and the transmission system operator (TSO) sign so-called booking contracts that grant capacity rights to traders to inject or withdraw gas at certain nodes up to this capacity. On a day-ahead basis, traders then nominate the actual amount of gas within the previously booked capacities. By signing a booking contract, the TSO guarantees that all nominations within the booking bounds can be transported through the network. This results in a highly challenging mathematical problem. Using potential-based flows to model stationary gas physics, feasible bookings on passive networks, i.e., networks without controllable elements, have been characterized in the recent literature. In this paper, we consider networks with linearly modeled active elements such as compressors or control valves. Since these active elements allow the TSO to control the gas flow, the single-level approaches for passive networks from the literature are no longer applicable. We thus present a bilevel model to decide the feasibility of bookings in networks with active elements. While this model is well-defined for general active networks, we focus on the class of networks for which active elements do not lie on cycles. This assumption allows us to reformulate the original bilevel model such that the lower-level problem is linear for every given upper-level decision. Consequently, we derive several single-level reformulations for this case. Besides the classic Karush-Kuhn-Tucker reformulation, we obtain three problem-specific optimal-value-function reformulations. The latter also lead to novel characterizations of feasible bookings in networks with active elements that do not lie on cycles. We compare the performance of our methods by a case study based on data from the GasLib.
It is well known that bilevel optimization problems are hard to solve both in theory and practice. In this paper, we highlight a further computational difficulty when it comes to solving bilevel problems with continuous but nonconvex lower levels. Even if the lower-level problem is solved to ɛ-feasibility regarding its nonlinear constraints for an arbitrarily small but positive ɛ, the obtained bilevel solution as well as its objective value may be arbitrarily far away from the actual bilevel solution and its actual objective value. This result even holds for bilevel problems for which the nonconvex lower level is uniquely solvable, for which the strict complementarity condition holds, for which the feasible set is convex, and for which Slater's constraint qualification is satisfied for all feasible upper-level decisions. Since the consideration of ɛ-feasibility cannot be avoided when solving nonconvex problems to global optimality, our result shows that computational bilevel optimization with continuous and nonconvex lower levels needs to be done with great care. Finally, we illustrate that the nonlinearities in the lower level are the key reason for the observed bad behavior by showing that linear bilevel problems behave much better at least on the level of feasible solutions.
Robust and bilevel optimization share the common feature that they involve a certain multilevel structure. Hence, although they model something rather different when used in practice, they seem to have a similar mathematical structure. In this paper, we analyze the connections between different types of robust problems (strictly robust problems with and without decision-dependence of their uncertainty sets, min-max-regret problems, and two-stage robust problems) as well as of bilevel problems (optimistic problems, pessimistic problems, and robust bilevel problems). It turns out that bilevel optimization seems to be more general in the sense that for most types of robust problems, one can find proper reformulations as bilevel problems but not necessarily the other way around. We hope that these results pave the way for a stronger connection between the two fields - in particular to use both theory and algorithms from one field in the other and vice versa.