# A Novel Binary Competitive Swarm Optimizer for Power System Unit Commitment
## 5 Experimental Results and Analysis
### The Experimental Results of BCSO

Table 2: Comparison between BCSO and other algorithms. There are many algorithms that have been used to solve the UC problem, for example, BPSO, BLPSO and NBPSO [33]. The first picture in Figure 1 shows the convergence curve of the four algorithms in the 10-unit problem, illustrating that the convergence speed of BCSO significantly outperforms the other methods. The Table 4 shows the experimental result of BCSO compared with the other binary PSO variants. Comparing the data in Table 4, we can find that the optimum solution of the BCSO is the best, achieving 56,397.68 $/day. As for the 20, 40 or 60-unit tests, the BCSO method also gets the best results among the four contestants. It can be concluded that the BCSO applied to the UC problem can bring significant economic benefits compared with other counterparts. The simulation result of BCSO and other algorithms is showed in Figure 1. This graph shows different convergence curves for the iteration process on different unit numbers. It can be observed that no matter what the number of units are, the green curve (representing the BCSO algorithm) always converged around the 20 th iteration. When the unit number is 20, 40 and 60, the convergence speed of BLPSO algorithm was the same as that of BCSO, but the convergence speed of BLPSO is not stable, and it becomes slower with the dimension increase. The curve of BPSO and NBPSO algorithm converged \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Units** & **Methods** & **Best (\$)** & **Mean (\$)** & **Worst (\$)** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{10} & BCSO & 563,937.68 & 563,937.68 & 563,937.68 & 12.51 \\  & BPSO & 563,955.99 & 564,000.40 & 564,053.73 & 21.56 \\  & BLPSO & 563,777.01 & 563,982.09 & 563,987.16 & 21.01 \\  & NBPSO & 563,937.68 & 563,962.59 & 563,977.01 & 21.05 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{20} & BCSO & 1,124,389.73 & 1,124,477.52 & 1,124,524.29 & 20.15 \\  & BPSO & 1,127,588.66 & 1,129,897.11 & 1,131,708.18 & 32.32 \\  & BLPSO & 1,126,027.27 & 1,126,195.45 & 1,126,748.06 & 31.32 \\  & NBPSO & 1,128,147.58 & 1,128,157.00 & 1,128,218.22 & 33.28 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{40} & BCSO & 2,246,837.71 & 2,247,351.83 & 2,247,675.59 & 35.02 \\  & BPSO & 2,260,669.13 & 2,267,206.95 & 2,273,667.73 & 51.77 \\  & BLPSO & 2,254,213.53 & 2,254,289.66 & 2,254,967.89 & 51.72 \\  & NBPSO & 2,261,696.75 & 2,261,696.75 & 2,261,696.75 & 53.17 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{60} & BCSO & 3,367,348.99 & 3,367,466.61 & 3,367,535.33 & 49.45 \\  & BPSO & 387,761.20 & 3,395,743.16 & 3,404,382.46 & 69.09 \\  & BLPSO & 3,384,093.39 & 3,393,103.18 & 3,395,468.84 & 66.68 \\  & NBPSO & 3,395,480.43 & 3,395,480.43 & 3,395,480.43 & 69.39 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{80} & BCSO & 4,491,212.46 & 4,491,574.93 & 4,491,717.60 & 66.91 \\  & BPSO & 4,524,683.47 & 4,538,115.06 & 4,547,525.84 & 103.94 \\ \cline{1-1}  & BLPSO & 4,513,521.52 & 4,520,667.44 & 4,522,452.92 & 98.97 \\ \cline{1-1}  & NBPSO & 4,530,843.70 & 4,530,843.70 & 4,530,843.70 & 101.33 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{100} & BCSO & 5,610,281.71 & 5,610,624.74 & 5,610,986.92 & 85.01 \\ \cline{1-1}  & BPSO & 566,545.61 & 5,482,671.50 & 5,692,414.71 & 112.45 \\ \cline{1-1}  & BLPSO & 5,655,610.14 & 5,655,610.14 & 5,655,610.14 & 113.54 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{80} & NBPSO & 5,648,702.49 & 5,648,702.49 & 5,648,702.49 & 121.56 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparisons using different methods for different Unit numbers. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Units** & **Best (\$)** & **Mean (\$)** & **Worst (\$)** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline
10 & 563,937.68 & 563,937.68 & 563,937.68 & 11.58 \\
20 & 1,124,389.73 & 1,124,477.52 & 1,124,524.29 & 20.15 \\
40 & 2,246,837.71 & 2,247,351.83 & 2,247,675.59 & 35.02 \\
60 & 3,367,348.99 & 3,367,466.61 & 3,367,535.33 & 49.45 \\
80 & 4,491,212.46 & 4,491,574.93 & 4,491,717.60 & 66.91 \\
100 & 5,610,281.71 & 5,610,624.74 & 5,610,986.92 & 85.01 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Statistic experimental result of BCSO for different Unit numbers.