Efficiency Predictions by Fuzzy Piecewise Auto-regression in Dynamic Network System

Workshop 2015 -Advances in DEA Theory and Applications (December 1-2, 2015)Since efficiency prediction can help managers to monitor future performance and detect potential failures, it is important for production and operation management. Data envelopment analysis is comprehensively applied to evaluate the relative performance in various areas. However, only few studies try to forecast the relative performance estimated by data envelopment analysis. We propose a performance forecasting model that integrates the multi-activity dynamic network data envelopment analysis and fuzzy piecewise auto-regression. The proposed approach constructs a dynamic performance measurement with the network structure to calculate the catching-up efficiency index. The catching-up efficiency index is further decomposed into the technical efficiency change and dynamic efficiency change to capture the effect of carry-over items. The fuzzy piecewise auto-regression is applied to regress the possibility and necessity estimation models by catching-up efficiency index for forecasting efficiency. In this paper, a data from banks in Taiwan from 2006 to 2012 are applied. The results indicate that the proposed approach has highly accuracy rate.The workshop is supported by JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science), Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), #25282090, titled “Studies in Theory and Applications of DEA for Forecasting Purpose.本研究はJSPS科研費 基盤研究(B) 25282090の助成を受けたものです

Fuzzy Linear Programming in DSS for Energy System Planning

Energy system planning requires the use of planning tools. The mathematical models of real-world energy systems are usually multiperiod linear optimization programs. In these models, the objective function describes the total discounted costs of covering the demand for final energy or energy services. The demand for various forms of energy or energy services is the driving force of the models. By using such linear programming (LP) formulations, decision makers can elaborate suitable strategies for solving their planning problems, such as the development of emission reduction strategies. Uncertainties that affect the process of energy system planning can be divided into parameter and decision uncertainties. Data or parameter uncertainties can be addressed either by stochastic optimization or by the methodology of fuzzy linear programming (FLP). In addition, FLP allows explicit incorporation of decision uncertainties into a mathematical model. This paper therefore aims at evaluating the methodology of FLP with respect to the support that it offers the decision-making process in energy system planning under uncertainty. Employing the parallels between multi-objective linear programming (MOLP) and FLP, problems of FLP in decision support system applications are pointed out and solutions are offered. The proposed modifications are based on the methodology of aspiration-reservation based decision support and still enable modeling of uncertainties in a fuzzy sense. A case study is documented to show the application of the modified FLP approach

Hyperspectral Unmixing Overview: Geometrical, Statistical, and Sparse Regression-Based Approaches

Imaging spectrometers measure electromagnetic energy scattered in their instantaneous field view in hundreds or thousands of spectral channels with higher spectral resolution than multispectral cameras. Imaging spectrometers are therefore often referred to as hyperspectral cameras (HSCs). Higher spectral resolution enables material identification via spectroscopic analysis, which facilitates countless applications that require identifying materials in scenarios unsuitable for classical spectroscopic analysis. Due to low spatial resolution of HSCs, microscopic material mixing, and multiple scattering, spectra measured by HSCs are mixtures of spectra of materials in a scene. Thus, accurate estimation requires unmixing. Pixels are assumed to be mixtures of a few materials, called endmembers. Unmixing involves estimating all or some of: the number of endmembers, their spectral signatures, and their abundances at each pixel. Unmixing is a challenging, ill-posed inverse problem because of model inaccuracies, observation noise, environmental conditions, endmember variability, and data set size. Researchers have devised and investigated many models searching for robust, stable, tractable, and accurate unmixing algorithms. This paper presents an overview of unmixing methods from the time of Keshava and Mustard's unmixing tutorial [1] to the present. Mixing models are first discussed. Signal-subspace, geometrical, statistical, sparsity-based, and spatial-contextual unmixing algorithms are described. Mathematical problems and potential solutions are described. Algorithm characteristics are illustrated experimentally.Comment: This work has been accepted for publication in IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensin

Adaptive traffic signal control using approximate dynamic programming

This paper presents a study on an adaptive traffic signal controller for real-time operation. The controller aims for three operational objectives: dynamic allocation of green time, automatic adjustment to control parameters, and fast revision of signal plans. The control algorithm is built on approximate dynamic programming (ADP). This approach substantially reduces computational burden by using an approximation to the value function of the dynamic programming and reinforcement learning to update the approximation. We investigate temporal-difference learning and perturbation learning as specific learning techniques for the ADP approach. We find in computer simulation that the ADP controllers achieve substantial reduction in vehicle delays in comparison with optimised fixed-time plans. Our results show that substantial benefits can be gained by increasing the frequency at which the signal plans are revised, which can be achieved conveniently using the ADP approach

Automatic programming methodologies for electronic hardware fault monitoring

This paper presents three variants of Genetic Programming (GP) approaches for intelligent online performance monitoring of electronic circuits and systems. Reliability modeling of electronic circuits can be best performed by the Stressor - susceptibility interaction model. A circuit or a system is considered to be failed once the stressor has exceeded the susceptibility limits. For on-line prediction, validated stressor vectors may be obtained by direct measurements or sensors, which after pre-processing and standardization are fed into the GP models. Empirical results are compared with artificial neural networks trained using backpropagation algorithm and classification and regression trees. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by comparing the experiment results with the actual failure model values. The developed model reveals that GP could play an important role for future fault monitoring systems.This research was supported by the International Joint Research Grant of the IITA (Institute of Information Technology Assessment) foreign professor invitation program of the MIC (Ministry of Information and Communication), Korea

Using rule extraction to improve the comprehensibility of predictive models.

Whereas newer machine learning techniques, like artifficial neural net-works and support vector machines, have shown superior performance in various benchmarking studies, the application of these techniques remains largely restricted to research environments. A more widespread adoption of these techniques is foiled by their lack of explanation capability which is required in some application areas, like medical diagnosis or credit scoring. To overcome this restriction, various algorithms have been proposed to extract a meaningful description of the underlying `blackbox' models. These algorithms' dual goal is to mimic the behavior of the black box as closely as possible while at the same time they have to ensure that the extracted description is maximally comprehensible. In this research report, we first develop a formal definition of`rule extraction and comment on the inherent trade-off between accuracy and comprehensibility. Afterwards, we develop a taxonomy by which rule extraction algorithms can be classiffied and discuss some criteria by which these algorithms can be evaluated. Finally, an in-depth review of the most important algorithms is given.This report is concluded by pointing out some general shortcomings of existing techniques and opportunities for future research.Models; Model; Algorithms; Criteria; Opportunities; Research; Learning; Neural networks; Networks; Performance; Benchmarking; Studies; Area; Credit; Credit scoring; Behavior; Time;

Inferring efficient operating rules in multireservoir water resource systems: A review

[EN] Coordinated and efficient operation of water resource systems becomes essential to deal with growing demands and uncertain resources in water-stressed regions. System analysis models and tools help address the complexities of multireservoir systems when defining operating rules. This paper reviews the state of the art in developing operating rules for multireservoir water resource systems, focusing on efficient system operation. This review focuses on how optimal operating rules can be derived and represented. Advantages and drawbacks of each approach are discussed. Major approaches to derive optimal operating rules include direct optimization of reservoir operation, embedding conditional operating rules in simulation-optimization frameworks, and inferring rules from optimization results. Suggestions on which approach to use depend on context. Parametrization-simulation-optimization or rule inference using heuristics are promising approaches. Increased forecasting capabilities will further benefit the use of model predictive control algorithms to improve system operation. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Water, Health, and Sanitation Engineering Water > MethodsThe study has been partially funded by the ADAPTAMED project (RTI2018-101483-B-I00) from the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion Universidades (MICINN) of Spain, and by the postdoctoral program (PAID-10-18) of the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV).Macian-Sorribes, H.; Pulido-Velazquez, M. (2019). Inferring efficient operating rules in multireservoir water resource systems: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water. 7(1):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1400S12471Aboutalebi, M., Bozorg Haddad, O., & Loáiciga, H. A. (2015). Optimal Monthly Reservoir Operation Rules for Hydropower Generation Derived with SVR-NSGAII. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 141(11), 04015029. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000553Ahmad, A., El-Shafie, A., Razali, S. F. M., & Mohamad, Z. S. (2014). Reservoir Optimization in Water Resources: a Review. Water Resources Management, 28(11), 3391-3405. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0700-5Ahmadi, M., Bozorg Haddad, O., & Mariño, M. A. (2013). Extraction of Flexible Multi-Objective Real-Time Reservoir Operation Rules. Water Resources Management, 28(1), 131-147. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0476-zAndreu, J., Capilla, J., & Sanchís, E. (1996). AQUATOOL, a generalized decision-support system for water-resources planning and operational management. Journal of Hydrology, 177(3-4), 269-291. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(95)02963-xAndreu, J., & Sahuquillo, A. (1987). Efficient Aquifer Simulation in Complex Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 113(1), 110-129. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(1987)113:1(110)Ashbolt, S. C., Maheepala, S., & Perera, B. J. C. (2016). Using Multiobjective Optimization to Find Optimal Operating Rules for Short-Term Planning of Water Grids. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(10), 04016033. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000675Ashbolt, S. C., & Perera, B. J. C. (2018). Multiobjective Optimization of Seasonal Operating Rules for Water Grids Using Streamflow Forecast Information. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(4), 05018003. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000902Azari, A., Hamzeh, S., & Naderi, S. (2018). Multi-Objective Optimization of the Reservoir System Operation by Using the Hedging Policy. Water Resources Management, 32(6), 2061-2078. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1917-5Becker, L., & Yeh, W. W.-G. (1974). Optimization of real time operation of a multiple-reservoir system. Water Resources Research, 10(6), 1107-1112. doi:10.1029/wr010i006p01107Bellman, R. E., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1962). Applied Dynamic Programming. doi:10.1515/9781400874651Ben-Tal, A., El Ghaoui, L., & Nemirovski, A. (2009). Robust Optimization. doi:10.1515/9781400831050Bessler, F. T., Savic, D. A., & Walters, G. A. (2003). Water Reservoir Control with Data Mining. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 129(1), 26-34. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2003)129:1(26)Bhaskar, N. R., & Whitlatch, E. E. (1980). Derivation of monthly reservoir release policies. Water Resources Research, 16(6), 987-993. doi:10.1029/wr016i006p00987Bianucci, P., Sordo-Ward, Á., Moralo, J., & Garrote, L. (2015). Probabilistic-Multiobjective Comparison of User-Defined Operating Rules. Case Study: Hydropower Dam in Spain. Water, 7(12), 956-974. doi:10.3390/w7030956Biglarbeigi, P., Giuliani, M., & Castelletti, A. (2018). Partitioning the Impacts of Streamflow and Evaporation Uncertainty on the Operations of Multipurpose Reservoirs in Arid Regions. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(7), 05018008. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000945Bolouri-Yazdeli, Y., Bozorg Haddad, O., Fallah-Mehdipour, E., & Mariño, M. A. (2014). Evaluation of Real-Time Operation Rules in Reservoir Systems Operation. Water Resources Management, 28(3), 715-729. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0510-1Borgomeo, E., Mortazavi-Naeini, M., Hall, J. W., O’Sullivan, M. J., & Watson, T. (2016). Trading-off tolerable risk with climate change adaptation costs in water supply systems. Water Resources Research, 52(2), 622-643. doi:10.1002/2015wr018164Bozorg-Haddad, O., Azarnivand, A., Hosseini-Moghari, S.-M., & Loáiciga, H. A. (2017). WASPAS Application and Evolutionary Algorithm Benchmarking in Optimal Reservoir Optimization Problems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 143(1), 04016070. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000716Bozorg-Haddad, O., Karimirad, I., Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., & Loáiciga, H. A. (2015). Development and Application of the Bat Algorithm for Optimizing the Operation of Reservoir Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 141(8), 04014097. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000498Breiman, L. (2001). Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32. doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M., & Li, K. (2012). Decision scaling: Linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resources Research, 48(9). doi:10.1029/2011wr011212Brown, C. M., Lund, J. R., Cai, X., Reed, P. M., Zagona, E. A., Ostfeld, A., … Brekke, L. (2015). The future of water resources systems analysis: Toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management. Water Resources Research, 51(8), 6110-6124. doi:10.1002/2015wr017114Cai, X., McKinney, D. C., & Lasdon, L. S. (2001). Piece-by-Piece Approach to Solving Large Nonlinear Water Resources Management Models. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(6), 363-368. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2001)127:6(363)Cai, X., Vogel, R., & Ranjithan, R. (2013). Special Issue on the Role of Systems Analysis in Watershed Management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(5), 461-463. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000341Cancelliere, A., Giuliano, G., Ancarani, A., & Rossi, G. (2002). Water Resources Management, 16(1), 71-88. doi:10.1023/a:1015563820136Caseri, A., Javelle, P., Ramos, M. H., & Leblois, E. (2015). Generating precipitation ensembles for flood alert and risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 9(4), 402-415. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12203Castelletti, A., Galelli, S., Restelli, M., & Soncini-Sessa, R. (2010). Tree-based reinforcement learning for optimal water reservoir operation. Water Resources Research, 46(9). doi:10.1029/2009wr008898Castelletti, A., Pianosi, F., & Restelli, M. (2013). A multiobjective reinforcement learning approach to water resources systems operation: Pareto frontier approximation in a single run. Water Resources Research, 49(6), 3476-3486. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20295Castelletti, A., Pianosi, F., & Soncini-Sessa, R. (2008). Water reservoir control under economic, social and environmental constraints. Automatica, 44(6), 1595-1607. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2008.03.003Castelletti, A., & Soncini-Sessa, R. (2007). Bayesian networks in water resource modelling and management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(8), 1073-1074. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.001Castelletti, A., & Soncini-Sessa, R. (2007). Bayesian Networks and participatory modelling in water resource management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(8), 1075-1088. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.003Celeste, A. B., & Billib, M. (2009). Evaluation of stochastic reservoir operation optimization models. Advances in Water Resources, 32(9), 1429-1443. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.06.008Celeste, A. B., Curi, W. F., & Curi, R. C. (2009). Implicit Stochastic Optimization for deriving reservoir operating rules in semiarid Brazil. Pesquisa Operacional, 29(1), 223-234. doi:10.1590/s0101-74382009000100011Chandramouli, V., & Raman, H. (2001). Multireservoir Modeling with Dynamic Programming and Neural Networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(2), 89-98. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2001)127:2(89)Chang, L.-C., & Chang, F.-J. (2001). Intelligent control for modelling of real-time reservoir operation. Hydrological Processes, 15(9), 1621-1634. doi:10.1002/hyp.226Chazarra, M., García-González, J., Pérez-Díaz, J. I., & Arteseros, M. (2016). Stochastic optimization model for the weekly scheduling of a hydropower system in day-ahead and secondary regulation reserve markets. Electric Power Systems Research, 130, 67-77. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2015.08.014Chen, D., Leon, A. S., Fuentes, C., Gibson, N. L., & Qin, H. (2018). Incorporating Filters in Random Search Algorithms for the Hourly Operation of a Multireservoir System. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(2), 04017088. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000876Coerver, H. M., Rutten, M. M., & van de Giesen, N. C. (2018). Deduction of reservoir operating rules for application in global hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(1), 831-851. doi:10.5194/hess-22-831-2018Côté, P., & Leconte, R. (2016). Comparison of Stochastic Optimization Algorithms for Hydropower Reservoir Operation with Ensemble Streamflow Prediction. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(2), 04015046. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000575Cui, L., & Kuczera, G. (2005). Optimizing water supply headworks operating rules under stochastic inputs: Assessment of genetic algorithm performance. Water Resources Research, 41(5). doi:10.1029/2004wr003517Culley, S., Noble, S., Yates, A., Timbs, M., Westra, S., Maier, H. R., … Castelletti, A. (2016). A bottom-up approach to identifying the maximum operational adaptive capacity of water resource systems to a changing climate. Water Resources Research, 52(9), 6751-6768. doi:10.1002/2015wr018253Cunha, M. C., & Antunes, A. (2012). Simulated annealing algorithms for water systems optimization. WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, 57-73. doi:10.2495/978-1-84564-664-6/04Dariane, A. B., & Momtahen, S. (2009). Optimization of Multireservoir Systems Operation Using Modified Direct Search Genetic Algorithm. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 135(3), 141-148. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2009)135:3(141)Das, B., Singh, A., Panda, S. N., & Yasuda, H. (2015). Optimal land and water resources allocation policies for sustainable irrigated agriculture. Land Use Policy, 42, 527-537. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.012Davidsen, C., Liu, S., Mo, X., Rosbjerg, D., & Bauer-Gottwein, P. (2016). The cost of ending groundwater overdraft on the North China Plain. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(2), 771-785. doi:10.5194/hess-20-771-2016Ehteram, M., Karami, H., & Farzin, S. (2018). Reservoir Optimization for Energy Production Using a New Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Models. Water Resources Management, 32(7), 2539-2560. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1945-1Eisel, L. M. (1972). Chance constrained reservoir model. Water Resources Research, 8(2), 339-347. doi:10.1029/wr008i002p00339European Commission(2007). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union COM(2007) 414 final. Brussels Belgium.European Commission. (2012a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources COM(2012) 673 final. Brussels Belgium.European Commission. (2012b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy COM(2012) 672 final. Brussels Belgium.Fallah-Mehdipour, E., Bozorg Haddad, O., & Mariño, M. A. (2012). Real-Time Operation of Reservoir System by Genetic Programming. Water Resources Management, 26(14), 4091-4103. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0132-zFazlali, A., & Shourian, M. (2017). A Demand Management Based Crop and Irrigation Planning Using the Simulation-Optimization Approach. Water Resources Management, 32(1), 67-81. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1791-6Ficchì, A., Raso, L., Dorchies, D., Pianosi, F., Malaterre, P.-O., Van Overloop, P.-J., & Jay-Allemand, M. (2016). Optimal Operation of the Multireservoir System in the Seine River Basin Using Deterministic and Ensemble Forecasts. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(1), 05015005. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000571Fu, Q., Li, T., Cui, S., Liu, D., & Lu, X. (2017). Agricultural Multi-Water Source Allocation Model Based on Interval Two-Stage Stochastic Robust Programming under Uncertainty. Water Resources Management, 32(4), 1261-1274. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1868-2Galelli, S., Goedbloed, A., Schwanenberg, D., & van Overloop, P.-J. (2014). Optimal Real-Time Operation of Multipurpose Urban Reservoirs: Case Study in Singapore. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 140(4), 511-523. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000342Giuliani, M., Castelletti, A., Pianosi, F., Mason, E., & Reed, P. M. (2016). Curses, Tradeoffs, and Scalable Management: Advancing Evolutionary Multiobjective Direct Policy Search to Improve Water Reservoir Operations. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(2), 04015050. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000570Giuliani, M., Herman, J. D., Castelletti, A., & Reed, P. (2014). Many-objective reservoir policy identification and refinement to reduce policy inertia and myopia in water management. Water Resources Research, 50(4), 3355-3377. doi:10.1002/2013wr014700Giuliani, M., Li, Y., Castelletti, A., & Gandolfi, C. (2016). A coupled human-natural systems analysis of irrigated agriculture under changing climate. Water Resources Research, 52(9), 6928-6947. doi:10.1002/2016wr019363Giuliani, M., Quinn, J. D., Herman, J. D., Castelletti, A., & Reed, P. M. (2018). Scalable Multiobjective Control for Large-Scale Water Resources Systems Under Uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 26(4), 1492-1499. doi:10.1109/tcst.2017.2705162Grüne, L., & Semmler, W. (2004). Using dynamic programming with adaptive grid scheme for optimal control problems in economics. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(12), 2427-2456. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2003.11.002Guariso, G., Rinaldi, S., & Soncini-Sessa, R. (1986). The Management of Lake Como: A Multiobjective Analysis. Water Resources Research, 22(2), 109-120. doi:10.1029/wr022i002p00109Gundelach, J., & ReVelle, C. (1975). Linear decision rule in reservoir management and design: 5. A general algorithm. Water Resources Research, 11(2), 204-207. doi:10.1029/wr011i002p00204Guo, X., Hu, T., Zeng, X., & Li, X. (2013). Extension of Parametric Rule with the Hedging Rule for Managing Multireservoir System during Droughts. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(2), 139-148. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000241Haddad, O. B., Afshar, A., & Mariño, M. A. (2006). Honey-Bees Mating Optimization (HBMO) Algorithm: A New Heuristic Approach for Water Resources Optimization. Water Resources Management, 20(5), 661-680. doi:10.1007/s11269-005-9001-3Hadka, D., Herman, J., Reed, P., & Keller, K. (2015). An open source framework for many-objective robust decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 74, 114-129. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.07.014Haguma, D., & Leconte, R. (2018). Long-Term Planning of Water Systems in the Context of Climate Non-Stationarity with Deterministic and Stochastic Optimization. Water Resources Management, 32(5), 1725-1739. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1900-6Haguma, D., Leconte, R., & Côté, P. (2018). Evaluating Transition Probabilities for a Stochastic Dynamic Programming Model Used in Water System Optimization. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(2), 04017090. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000883Houck, M. H. (1979). A Chance Constrained Optimization Model for reservoir design and operation. Water Resources Research, 15(5), 1011-1016. doi:10.1029/wr015i005p01011Ji, C., Zhou, T., & Huang, H. (2014). Operating Rules Derivation of Jinsha Reservoirs System with Parameter Calibrated Support Vector Regression. Water Resources Management, 28(9), 2435-2451. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0610-6Karamouz, M., & Houck, M. H. (1982). Annual and monthly reservoir operating rules generated by deterministic optimization. Water Resources Research, 18(5), 1337-1344. doi:10.1029/wr018i005p01337Karamouz, M., & Houck, M. H. (1987). COMPARISON OF STOCHASTIC AND DETERMINISTIC DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING FOR RESERVOIR OPERATING RULE GENERATION. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 23(1), 1-9. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1987.tb00778.xKaramouz, M., & Vasiliadis, H. V. (1992). Bayesian stochastic optimization of reservoir operation using uncertain forecasts. Water Resources Research, 28(5), 1221-1232. doi:10.1029/92wr00103Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55-71. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007Kelman, J., Stedinger, J. R., Cooper, L. A., Hsu, E., & Yuan, S.-Q. (1990). Sampling stochastic dynamic programming applied to reservoir operation. Water Resources Research, 26(3), 447-454. doi:10.1029/wr026i003p00447Keshtkar, A. R., Salajegheh, A., Sadoddin, A., & Allan, M. G. (2013). Application of Bayesian networks for sustainability assessment in catchment modeling and management (Case study: The Hablehrood river catchment). Ecological Modelling, 268, 48-54. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.08.003Kim, T., Heo, J.-H., Bae, D.-H., & Kim, J.-H. (2008). Single-reservoir operating rules for a year using multiobjective genetic algorithm. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 10(2), 163-179. doi:10.2166/hydro.2008.019Koutsoyiannis, D., & Economou, A. (2003). Evaluation of the parameterization-simulation-optimization approach for the control of reservoir systems. Water Resources Research, 39(6). doi:10.1029/2003wr002148Kumar, D. N., & Reddy, M. J. (2006). Ant Colony Optimization for Multi-Purpose Reservoir Operation. Water Resources Management, 20(6), 879-898. doi:10.1007/s11269-005-9012-0Nagesh Kumar, D., & Janga Reddy, M. (2007). Multipurpose Reservoir Operation Using Particle Swarm Optimization. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133(3), 192-201. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2007)133:3(192)Kumar, K., & Kasthurirengan, S. (2018). Generalized Linear Two-Point Hedging Rule for Water Supply Reservoir Operation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(9), 04018051. doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000964Kwakkel, J. H., Haasnoot, M., & Walker, W. E. (2016). Comparing Robust Decision-Making and Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software, 86, 168-183. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017Labadie, J. W. (2004). Optimal Operation of Multireservoir Systems: State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 130(2), 93-111. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2004)130:2(93)Labadie J. W. Baldo M. &Larson R.(2000).MODSIM: Decision support system for river basin management. Documentation and user manual.Lee, J.-H., & Labadie, J. W. (2007). Stochastic optimization of multireservoir systems via reinforcement learning. Water Resources Research, 43(11). doi:10.1029/2006wr005627Lei, X., Tan, Q., Wang, X., Wang, H., Wen, X., Wang, C., & Zhang, J. (2018). Stochastic optimal operation of reservoirs based on copula functions. Journal of Hydrology, 557, 265-275. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.12.038Lerma, N., Paredes-Arquiola, J., Andreu, J., & Solera, A. (2013). Development of operating rules for a complex multi-reservoir system by coupling genetic algorithms and network optimization. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 58(4), 797-812. doi:10.1080/02626667.2013.779777Lerma, N., Paredes-Arquiola, J., Andreu, J., Solera, A., & Sechi, G. M. (2015). Assessment of evolutionary algorithms for optimal operating rules design in real Water Resource Systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 69, 425-436. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.024Li, Y., Giuliani, M., & Castelletti, A. (2017). A coupled human–natural system to assess the operational value of weather and climate services for agriculture. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(9), 4693-4709. doi:10.5194/hess-21-4693-2017Lin, N. M., & Rutten, M. (2016). Optimal Operation of a Network of Multi-purpose Reservoir: A Review. Procedia Engineering, 154, 1376-1384. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.504Liu, P., Cai, X., & Guo, S. (2011). Deriving multiple near-optimal solutions to deterministic reservoir operation problems. Water Resources Research, 47(8). doi:10.1029/2011wr010998Loucks, D. P. (1970). Some Comments on Linear Decision Rules and Chance Constraints. Water Resources Research, 6(2), 668-671. doi:10.1029/wr006i002p00668Loucks