Unlocking Full Dynamic Optimization of District Energy Systems through State-Space Model Learning
surrogate model;state-space;physics-informed models;optimal control;sustainable energy systems
Yes
No ethics review needed.
(a). What do RY, AY mean in the dataset? Needs a bit more explanation.

(b). For the real data mentioned in the paper, is it possible to get the ground truth physical model? And based on such a model, can standard Model Predictive Control or optimization-based methods give exact solutions? I notice the authors compared performance in Table 3, but the settings are very unclear.

(c). Why the method is described as an end-to-end approach? The surrogate modeling and control part are separate.

(d). Can the authors show some control curves, the state variables before and after the controls? This would help validate the efficacy of the proposed algorithm.

(e). Can the authors describe in more details for current methods, why the computation time are much longer than the proposed method? Is that due to the intractability of the formulated MPC problem, or due to the small simulation resolution, or due to the existence of constraints? 

(f). How do the proposed method scale up to larger district networks?

(g). Are their any noises throughout the sensing, measuring, and control procedures? How do they affect the algorithm design?
This paper brings out the modeling and control of district heating network. It brings the strong modeling power of graph neural networks into this application. The real data also justifies the use of machine learning model for such a task.
This paper looks into the long-horizon predictive control problem of district heating networks. A state space model is formulated, and a genetic algorithm based controller is adopted. Simulation results show the proposed method can help with both computation time and solution accuracy.
One of the major concerns are the gap between a general "application of deep learning to physical systems" and the specific "district energy systems" tasks. The authors made several bold claims about the method, but the major contribution seems to be limited to a very specific physical dynamics and control settings.

Another major concern is the use of genetic algorithm. It is unclear why such algorithm is selected, and how the algorithm performs with model-based RL or model-free decision-making approaches.

The use of STGCN in dynamics modeling and decision making are not novel contributions of this work. It is a mere application of the previous packages.

The abstract described about long-term reward, but it is unclear how the proposed method tackle such issue.

There is a lack of comparison to other methods, and the testing case seem to be very specific to one private dataset.

Some minor errors: 
Line 209 "each of the clusters"-> "each of the cluster";
Yes
No ethics review needed.
* How do stronger baselines and ablations of the proposed method perform in this setting? (See more detail in "Weaknesses.")
* What is the control cost associated with using MPC?
* See also the additional questions under "Weaknesses."
* This paper tackles a problem of great societal importance -- namely, optimization of district heating networks.
* The need for a surrogate model to approximate the system dynamics is well-motivated, and the use of a supervised loss plus mass flow rate conservation term is well-suited for this problem. The surrogate model seems to perform well, capturing both fast-evolving and slow-evolving dynamics that are apparent in the numerical simulation.
* The proposed method improves control performance by ~8-25% compared to business-as-usual operations (depending on which scenario), and is orders of magnitude faster to run than MPC.
This paper addresses the control of district energy systems using a neural network surrogate model for the dynamics; the aim is to improve control performance while reducing computational costs. The main contribution is PI-STGCN, a neural network-based model that is trained to approximate the dynamics by minimizing a supervised loss with an additional soft constraint representing mass flow rate conservation. The authors present results demonstrating that this surrogate model captures both fast and slow dynamical patterns within the system. PI-STGCN is then used within an optimal control loop, which is optimized using genetic algorithms. The authors show that this approach improves system costs compared to the business-as-usual system operation, while being significantly faster to run than MPC.
* The experimental evaluation needs significant improvement:
   * With respect to learning the dynamics model, no other methods are compared against; all comparisons depict different configurations of the authors' proposed model. There should be a more extensive comparison against baselines and alternative methods.
   * The comparisons with respect to control performance seem incomplete. In particular, there is little transparency on what control method is used to generate the "real costs." In addition, while timing performance is shown for MPC, the control costs are not shown for MPC. More extensive comparison against baselines and alternative methods is likewise necessary.
   * Ablation studies are needed to demonstrate that all parts of the proposed algorithmic pipeline are indeed necessary, as there are many moving pieces to the proposed methodology.
* The writing and presentation could use some improvement. This includes:
    * Ensuring all terms are defined in the main body of the paper, alongside where they are used.
    * Ensuring the main body of the paper is self-contained with respect to the methodology. Notably, details on the genetic algorithm-based optimization of the control loop are relatively sparse.
    * Improving the discussion of prior work. Despite the existing discussion of prior work, it is not clear what exactly is the state-of-the-art upon which this paper improves (and this is further exacerbated by the lack of comparisons in the experiments).

I also have several questions, which may or may not indicate weaknesses:
* A Gaussian jittering approach may lead to time series that have the exact "convenient" type of noise/deviation from the original signal that it is easy for neural networks to smooth out. Is the evaluation in Figure 5 on those same Gaussian-jittered time series on which the model was trained, or on a different "hold out" set of time series?
* How "good" are the MSEs in Table 2 (relating to out-of-distribution dynamics)? Is it possible to see a plot in order to visually inspect how well the out-of-distribution dynamics were learned?
* In Section 4.3, it is claimed that by learning a neural network surrogate for the dynamics, it is no longer necessary to view the control problem as a constrained problem. Could the authors provide more substantiation for this claim? Is this claim solely based on the observation that constraints were satisfied in Figure 5 (evaluation of the dynamics learned by PI-STGCN), or is there theoretical proof? If the former, then it would be seriously important to also report on constraint satisfaction performance in Section 4.3 / Table 5 (evaluation of control performance).
Yes
No ethics review needed.
I would like clarification on the following questions:

1. What are the details of the simulator used?

2. What is the performance of MPC using the simulator itself for rollouts?

3. What computing power was used for the simulator, so that we can actually understand the proposed speedup

4. How does the hyper param tuning and data augmentation factor in to the speedup? We cannot ignore this, even if the actual simulation time once it is done is much faster

5. Did you use the same simulator both to augment the dataset, and to evaluate the model? Can you provide clarification on why this is not simply overfitting to the simulator?
1. historical timeseries augmentation is a very clever idea, and the combination of using a high fidelity surrogate model, combined with gaussian jittering, to augment the data is elegant and well presented.

2. While the authors are not the first to use a GNN for this problem, the choice is well motivated and clearly appropriate. 

3. Equations were neatly presented, and I appreciated the level of detail.

4. The approach is system agnostic

5. The approach is clearly presented and its novelty relative to prior work is mostly well explained.
This paper presents a framework for learning state-space representations, that leverages graph neural networks to lead to computational gains. The method is evaluated on prediction and control scenarios. While the paper was overall well written, it contains some misleading comparisons and omissions that make it not good enough for publication at this stage.
1. While the writing quality was mostly good, there were some issues that need to be resolved. For example, some typos persist throughout the paper, such as the misspelling of “technique” as “technic” on lines 42 and 50, and confusing “optimized” and “optimal” on line 512. 
There were also several examples of awkward writing, such as 
\
“The acceleration of complex and traditional simulations is one of the fields where deep learning models offer an appealing alternative, technically called surrogate models (SM)”
\
“A detailed presentation of the genetic algorithm implementation using pymoo library is provided in appendix A.2 after”
\
The writing was also hyperbolic in some cases, such as 
“Our work completes the related studies by employing a versatile neural network architecture that is application-agnostic, making it suitable for district energy systems.”
\
Another issue is that some terms are not defined. For example, the authors referenced “weak augmentation T_1” on line 337, but I could not find this defined anywhere, neither in the paper nor in the reference it cited.

2. Assuming we have an accurate predictive model, genetic algorithms are a strange choice of baseline. The results were good enough that I am not denying the efficacy of genetic algorithms, but there needs to be more motivation behind why this was chosen as opposed to other MPC or RL control algorithms.

3. Claims of the speedup relative to other systems as “4 orders of magnitutde” seems wildly exaggerated for the following reasons:
\
a. Their model is being compared with a “high fidelity numerical model”. However, we are not given details of this model at all! This is a glaring lacuna. Further, we do not know what hardware it is run. Conversely, their alg makes use of a V100 GPU, which is a significant amount of compute
\
b. Their model required hyperparameter tuning, with 150 sampled configurations with 30 epochs each. This cost is simply ignored in the comparison
\
c. The selfsame expensive “high fidelity numerical model” is used in the data augmentation pipeline. This cost is completely omitted as well.

4. The fact that the “high fidelity numerical model”, also referred to at times as the “simulator” is not clearly defined is a glaring omission. Not just because this makes computational comparisons impossible to verify, as discussed above, but also because this model is used in the data augmentation pipeline. Furthermore, if this highly accurate model exists, why do we not have a baseline comparing performance gains when we use it for MPC? In this regard, Table 3 is highly misleading. It compares performance on real data vs their method, but computation is a comparison of their method vs using MPC. Surprisingly missing is the performance of the MPC model!

5. The authors claim, as early as the abstract, that “This methodology is evaluated on a real-world district heating system incorporating thermal solar panels, storage, biomass and natural gas boilers.” Initially, this claim really excited me, but as I read the paper I found it highly misleading as well. 
\
This implies a live trial on a real system. However, what was actually performed was a comparison of real offline data, and the performance of their model on a high fidelity simulator. This is decidedly NOT a real world evaluation. Furthermore, since the very evaluation model, the high fidelity numerical model, is also used in the augmentation pipeline, this is a serious evaluation issue. For example, in section 4.1 the model is compared with the simulator, but since it was trained on augmented data from the simulator, this is equivalent to showing performance on the training set.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Being a little unfamiliar with the topic, I would like to improve my understanding of the paper to provide better feedback and evaluation.

The system dynamics are modeled using a PI-STGCN; is this surrogate model learned in the loop? If so, how does it account for the control action optimized by the genetic algorithm? More formally, how are the gradients of the loss with respect to the model parameters computed in an end-to-end fashion?
Intuitively, to output good control actions, the genetic algorithm should be informed from the resulting outcome of its predicted control action. Is that correct? Can you provide a step-by-step explanation of how the surrogate model interacts with the genetic algorithm during training and optimization?
What is the size of the actual energy network used in the experiments (number of nodes and edge)? Have the experiments been carried out over different networks size? If so, what is the relationship with the dimensionality of the state-space model that is learned?
Using a physics informed, space temporal graph neural network to learn a state space representation of the dynamics in a multi-source district energy networks, to the best of my knowledge, is novel and allows for a significant speed up over model predictive control and reduction of operational costs.
The authors propose an end-to-end framework for optimizing the control of district energy systems. Traditional optimization in such systems is computationally intensive, often limiting the optimization to short horizons and preventing effective long-term planning. The paper addresses this by introducing a physics-informed spatio-temporal graph neural network, which learns a state-space representation of the system dynamics. This surrogate model is optimized to replace high-fidelity simulations, which allows for a significant reduction of computational time and operating costs. The model is applied to a real-world district heating system involving renewable and traditional energy sources such as biomass and natural gas.
Since the predictive model is pretained, the overall performance of the proposed method relies on the accuracy of its prediction. Given that the training of this model tries to account for the possible predicted control actions and dynamic scenarios, what if this assumption does not hold, in practice? Alternatively, would it be possible to learn end-to-end the predictive model? That might allow to account for the decision making part. If not, what are the limitations?
We present a state-space learning framework with hybrid AI for optimizing multi-source district energy systems, cutting computational time from days to few minutes.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024unlocking,
title={Unlocking Full Dynamic Optimization of District Energy Systems through State-Space Model Learning},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=mJwpHp8guj},
note={under review}
}
Predictive control enables the operation of physical systems along an optimal trajectory based on forecasts and dynamic simulations. However, the complexity of system dynamics and high computational cost of optimization typically restrict the optimization window to short horizons. Thus, any potential benefits from mid- and long-term rewards are withdrawn. This is particularly relevant for optimization of district energy systems using various low-environmental-impact sources. To address this, we present an end-to-end methodological framework for learning state-space representations of such systems that significantly reduce computational load. The proposed approach leverages the implicit graph structure of such systems to develop and train a physics-informed spatio-temporal graph neural network. This methodology is evaluated on a real-world district heating system incorporating thermal solar panels, storage, biomass and natural gas boilers. Through historical time-series data augmentation and hyperparameter optimization, the learned model demonstrates strong generalization ability and high accuracy in predicting system dynamics. Our method reduces simulation time by four orders of magnitude, cutting optimization time from several days to mere minutes, while also lowering operational costs by up to 25%.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
surrogate model state-space physics-informed models optimal control sustainable energy systems
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/a7dc1593fe360ad0b6d7c29c59f570009203ef54.pdf
neurosymbolic & hybrid AI systems (physics-informed, logic & formal reasoning, etc.)
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
Unlocking Full Dynamic Optimization of District Energy Systems through State-Space Model Learning
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission