scieee AI-readable full text Open interactive document viewer

Mastering multi-scale ensemble forecasts using Reinforcement Learning for advancing Forecast Informed Reservoir Operation

Giuliani, Matteo

Abstract

This presentation was given during the EWRI World Congress 2024. The growing variability in hydrological regimes and the more frequent and intense extreme events necessitate a transition from conventional rule-based reservoir management to adaptive operations. This transition can be facilitated by harnessing improved hydro-meteorological forecasts and implementing feedback and feedforward control strategies. While the importance of assessing hydrological forecast value for reservoir operation has long been recognized and studied, new opportunities and challenges are now emerging thanks to the availability of a wealth of hydro-meteorological forecast products over different time scales. These products often include information on uncertainty via Ensemble Forecasts, which is the current standard in operational forecasting. When multiple forecasts from different systems are available, users should address a number of challenges, including the selection of the forecast product, the lead time, the variable aggregation, the bias correction, how to cope with the forecast uncertainty. Usually, these choices are reservoir-specific and based on the operators’ experience, often lacking a transparent reporting of operational rules and guidelines to support such critical choices. Here we explore the potential for advancing forecast informed reservoir operations via Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms. Our RL approach is evaluated using the Lake Como system in Northern Italy, a regulated lake primarily operated for flood control and water supply. The sub-alpine basin of the lake is characterized by mixed slow and fast dynamics resulting from the snow- and rain-dominated hydrology. In this context, forecasts over short and seasonal time scales may be valuable, and today the lake operator has access to different forecast products: short-term (i.e., 60 hours lead time) deterministic forecasts produced with locally calibrated models as well as the sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasts of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service's European Flood Awareness System. Our results show that RL can support the extraction of valuable information from the available forecast products. Specifically, we first extended the Evolutionary Multi-Objective Direct Policy Search method to explore a wider decision space, including the operating policy parameters along with hyperparameters determining how to process the forecast information in terms of selection of the best forecast product, lead time, variable aggregation. The strength of this approach is that the information extraction is completely integrated with the multi-objective policy design, producing a seamless RL approach able to extract the most valuable information for different Pareto optimal tradeoffs. In addition, we show how performing the optimization through Monte Carlo simulations that use all members of the forecast ensemble yields more robust performance than informing the operations with deterministic forecasts or statistics extracted from the forecast ensemble.

Full text

MASTERING MULTI-SCALE ENSEMBLE FORECASTS USING REINFORCEMENT LEARNING FOR ADVANCING FORECAST INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATION M. GIULIANI, D. Zanutto, D. Spinelli, A. Ficchì, A. Castelletti DYNAMICAL FORECAST SYSTEMS KEEP IMPROVING Source: Buizza and Richardson 2017, Meteorology Evolution of ECMWF forecast skill ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ADDED NEW FORECAST PRODUCTS Source: https://charts.ecmwf.int/ BUT STILL LIMITED USE IN RESERVOIR OPERATION Source: https://www.sonomawater.org/firo LAKE COMO IN THE ITALIAN LAKE DISTRICT LAKE COMO IN THE ITALIAN LAKE DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL LAKE COMO IN THE ITALIAN LAKE DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL WATER SUPPLY LAKE COMO IN THE ITALIAN LAKE DISTRICT LOW LEVEL CONTROL FLOOD CONTROL WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE FORECAST PRODUCTS 510 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 PROGEA •3 days •deterministic •COSMO + local hydrological model •Daily updates Forecast Lead Time FORECAST INFORMED LAKE OPERATION 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Deficit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Low level Flood: 4.5-5.5 [d/y] Perfect Forecast No Forecast Which is the best Aggregation Time for the best-skill product? Zanutto et al., under review FORECAST INFORMED LAKE OPERATION 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Deficit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Low level Flood: 4.5-5.5 [d/y] Perfect Forecast No Forecast Which is the best Aggregation Time for the best-skill product? AT = 3 days (PROGEA) Zanutto et al., under review FORECAST INFORMED LAKE OPERATION 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Deficit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Low level Flood: 4.5-5.5 [d/y] Perfect Forecast No Forecast Which is the best Aggregation Time for the best-skill product? AT = 3 days (PROGEA) Which is the best product and at which Aggregation Time? Zanutto et al., under review FORECAST INFORMED LAKE OPERATION 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Deficit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Low level Flood: 4.5-5.5 [d/y] Perfect Forecast No Forecast Which is the best Aggregation Time for the best-skill product? AT = 3 days (PROGEA) Which is the best product and at which Aggregation Time? PROGEA with AT = 3 days Zanutto et al., under review FORECAST INFORMED LAKE OPERATION Which is the best Aggregation Time for the best-skill product? AT = 3 days (PROGEA) Which is the best product and at which Aggregation Time? PROGEA with AT = 3 days Which are the 2 best products, at which Aggregation Times, and considering which quantile of the ensemble? 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Deficit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Low level Flood: 4.5-5.5 [d/y] Perfect Forecast No Forecast Zanutto et al., under review THE VALUE OF FORECAST UNCERTAINTY SEEMS MARGINAL Which is the best Aggregation Time for the best-skill product? AT = 3 days (PROGEA) Which is the best product and at which Aggregation Time? PROGEA with AT = 3 days Which are the 2 best products, at which Aggregation Times, and considering which quantile of the ensemble? 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Hypervolume Indicator No Forecast Perfect Forecast PROGEA with AT = 3 days + median of EFRF with AT = 33 days FIROFIRO FIRO Zanutto et al., under review 0.61 0.72 0.72 0.73 1.00 PARALLEL ENSEMBLE FORECAST CONTROL (PECAN) SYSTEM MODEL OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM objectives operating policy parameters parametric operating policy reservoir model release decision reservoir level PARALLEL ENSEMBLE FORECAST CONTROL (PECAN) SYSTEM MODEL OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM objectives operating policy parameters parametric operating policy reservoir model ensemble of release decisions reservoir level Data Hydrological forecasts Short-range Long-range Medium/extended-range PROGEA TOPKAPI + COSMO EFAS sub-seasonal LISFLOOD + ENS (ECMWF) EFAS seasonal LISFLOOD + SEAS5 (ECMWF) Probabilistic reforecast 11 ensemble members Probabilistic reforecast 25 ensemble members 3 days 46 days 215 days 5 Deterministic forecast Daily Twice-Weekly Monthly Key features Product name (models) Update frequency ensemble forecasts PECAN POLICIES GAIN ADDITIONAL FORECAST VALUE                              Spinelli et al. 2024, European Control Conference TAKEAWAYS