Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A Data-Driven Pool Strategy for Price-Makers Under Imperfect Information

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a price-making generator can replace the exact market-clearing model with a learned classifier and linear regressions, recovering 70–76% of maximum revenue when transmission parameters are unavailable.

desk verdict A genuinely novel combination of rim-MPLP, probabilistic SVM classification, and differentiable expected-profit optimization for price-maker bidding; the main weakness is the revenue evaluation restricted to frequent critical regions, not the Appendix A gradient derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14694 v1 pith:C4ZCT357 submitted 2024-11-22 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SY

Kedi Zheng , Hongye Guo , Qixin Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SY
keywords electricitymarketprice-makerbiddingimperfectinformationmulti-parametriclinearprogrammingcriticalregionssupportvectormachinelocationalmarginalpricepower
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In electricity markets, a price-making generator usually needs the system operator's transmission model to know how its bids move prices. This paper shows that the market-clearing problem can be broken into critical regions—combinations of binding generation and transmission constraints—within which prices and cleared volumes are linear-affine in bids and load. It trains a support-vector-machine classifier to predict, from the generator's own bids and load information, which region the market will land in, and fits linear regressions for prices and volumes inside each region. These pieces are assembled into a revenue-maximization problem whose gradient includes the classifier's probability output, so the generator's effect on congestion is internalized. In tests on 30-, 200-, and 500-bus systems, the method earns about 70–76% of the perfect-information optimum in the 30-bus case and consistently beats a benchmark that ignores the bid's influence on system patterns.

What carries the argument

The central object is the critical region (system pattern) from rim multi-parametric linear programming: each region is a convex polytope of bid-and-load parameters corresponding to one set of binding constraints in the dispatch problem. Within a region, prices and volumes are linear-affine functions; across regions, the binding set changes. The machinery is an OVO SVM with sigmoid probability calibration, which converts binary decision values into pairwise class probabilities, coupled with a standard pairwise-coupling procedure to get region probabilities $p_k(x,L)$, and linear regressions for $\varphi^{(k)}$ and $\psi^{(k)}$. The optimization objective $\sum_k p_k(x,L)(\varphi^{(k)}_G \psi^{(k)}_G - h_G(\psi^{(k)}_G))$ is differentiable; its gradient includes $(\nabla_x p)_G$, computed by differentiating through the SVM decision values and the probability couplings, so the bidder's influence on which constraints bind enters the bidding rule.

What would settle it

Test the trained method on scenarios drawn from the rare critical regions excluded by the 50-most-frequent filter, or on load and rival-offer values outside the historical range; if realized revenue there is no higher than the empirical-probability benchmark, or if the classifier's accuracy falls to dummy level, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mapping from a price-maker's bid curve to the market outcome is learnable from historical data even when the transmission network is unknown, because the DC-OPF solution is piecewise linear-affine over critical regions. Using rim-MPLP, the paper shows each critical region corresponds to a unique set of binding constraints, and within each region prices and cleared generation are linear-affine functions of bids and load. Therefore a multi-class SVM with probability calibration can estimate the probability of each region as a function of the bid, and linear regression can estimate the parametric functions. Plugging these into the expected-revenue objective makes the probability gradient the carrier of market power: it tells the generator how its bid shifts the chance of congestion. The paper reports that this yields roughly 70–76% of the theoretical MPEC revenue at information levels II–IV on the 30-bus system, outperforming both an RDC-like benchmark and an empirical-probability benchmark, and 59–65% on the 200-bus system.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classifier and the within-region regressions, learned from historical data, remain accurate for the bids the optimizer explores and for the load and rival-offer states the market actually reaches, even though the optimization objective does not restrict bids to the training region and the experiments filter to common critical regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prices and cleared volumes within each system pattern are linear-affine in bids and load, so the market outcome inside a region can be represented by simple regressions.
  • A generator's effect on which constraints bind enters the bidding problem through the gradient of the classifier probabilities, so the method keeps the market-power channel that MPEC captures.
  • The reported experiments show roughly 70–76% of MPEC revenue in the 30-bus case and 59–65% in the 200-bus case, with the proposed method ahead of both RDC-like and empirical-probability benchmarks.
  • Because the probability-gradient derivation only needs decision values differentiable in the features, other differentiable classifiers can replace SVM without changing the optimization loop.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The experiments filter to the 50 most frequent critical regions and test on the 10 most frequent ones, so the reported revenue fractions likely overstate performance on rare congestion states.
  • If load or rival-offer distributions shift after training, the learned region probabilities can become invalid without any warning; a confidence-based monitoring or retraining rule would be a natural safeguard.
  • The same rim-MPLP-plus-classifier pattern could apply to other bilevel decisions where the lower-level constraints are unknown, such as storage arbitrage or network-constrained investment, but the paper does not demonstrate those.
  • The probability-gradient term itself could serve as a data-driven measure of a generator's market power for monitoring purposes, independent of the bidding optimization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven bidding strategy for a price-maker GenCo that lacks access to transmission parameters. The market-clearing DC-OPF is analyzed through rim multi-parametric linear programming, in which the feasible parameter space partitions into critical regions (system patterns), within which primal and dual solutions are affine in the bid parameters and loads. The GenCo learns these regions with an OVO SVM classifier with Platt scaling, fits linear regressions for locational marginal prices and cleared volumes within each region, and embeds the resulting probabilistic model into a revenue-maximization problem solved by gradient descent. Numerical experiments on the IEEE 30-bus, Illinois 200-bus, and South Carolina 500-bus systems compare the proposed method against MPEC, RDC-like, and empirical-probability benchmarks under four information levels and for block and quadratic bidding forms, with both lossless and lossy OPF.

Significance. If the claims hold, the method is a meaningful practical extension of MPEC-based strategic bidding: it replaces the exact market-clearing model with a learned surrogate when transmission parameters are unavailable, which is a common and practically important information gap. The use of rim-MPLP to justify learning critical regions from historical data is a sound motivation, and the paper provides a complete algorithmic pipeline with comparative experiments on three test systems. The paper reports that the proposed method achieves 70--76% of MPEC revenue in the 30-bus case and outperforms the empirical-probability benchmark at all information levels, which is an encouraging result. However, the significance is conditional because the revenue evaluation is restricted to the most frequent critical regions and the optimizer is not constrained to the training distribution, so the reported gains may not extend to rare or extreme market states.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-C, Tables II--IV] The revenue comparison is computed on '20 time intervals from the 10 most frequent CRs' while the classifier is trained on the 50 most frequent CRs. This filters out rare and extreme market states, so the claim that the proposed method 'outperforms the benchmark using empirical probability (V) in all levels of information' is not established for the full operating envelope. Please report revenue results on the full test set, or at least on a stratified sample that includes rare CRs, and discuss how the method behaves on those states. If rare CRs are intentionally excluded, the scope of the claim must be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section IV-A, Eq. (21)] The objective in (21) is maximized over x_G with no term that keeps x_G in the training distribution of the historical (x, L) pairs used to fit the SVM and the parametric functions. Since the classifier probabilities and the regressions are only validated on data drawn from the historical distribution, the optimizer can select bids for which the learned mapping is pure extrapolation. The paper should provide a diagnostic (e.g., distance to the training data support, or a density estimate) showing that the optimized bids lie within the training distribution, or add a regularization term that discourages out-of-distribution bids. Without this, the reported revenues may be optimistic.
  3. [Section V-B, Table I] For several block-form cases the SVM test accuracy is well above the dummy classifiers but still low in absolute terms (e.g., 42.19% for the 500-bus block-form lossy case). With a majority of predicted critical regions being wrong, the expected revenue in (21) is based on substantially miscalibrated probabilities. The paper does not analyze how this classification error propagates into the revenue results, or whether the reported revenue gains are robust to this error. Please include a discussion of the revenue impact of misclassification, and consider reporting revenue results separately for the settings with high and low classification accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (34)] The intermediate expression for Δα in (34) omits a minus sign; the final expression for Δp in the same equation is algebraically correct, so this appears to be a typographical error rather than a load-bearing flaw. Please correct the sign for clarity.
  2. [Section III-A, Eqs. (14)--(16)] The sign convention of the OVO decision function should be stated explicitly: with y(t) = -1 for class i and y(t) = +1 for class j, f_ij > 0 favors class j, and consequently r_ij in (16) is the probability of class i. This will make the signs in the gradient derivation unambiguous.
  3. [Section IV-B] The feature vector X(t) for information levels III and IV is not specified concretely; please state which components of x and L (or zonal load) are included in the classification and regression for each level.
  4. [Section V-E, Table IV] Several percentages in Table IV exceed 100% (e.g., Block Lossy, RDC-like 103.9%, Level II 103.0%, Level III 104.0%). The text explains that MPEC uses a lossless OPF and therefore underperforms on lossy test data, but the label 'maximum revenue' for MPEC is misleading in these rows; please clarify that MPEC is not an upper bound in these settings.
  5. [Section II, last paragraph] The statement that the critical region characteristics still hold for lossy OPF when the loss sensitivity and loss distribution factor vectors are fixed is asserted without a proof or derivation. Since the experiments include lossy cases, adding a short justification or a reference would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the learned surrogate is evaluated out-of-sample against an independent market-clearing benchmark, and the CR filtering is a generalization caveat rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Propositions 1 and 2 derive the CR partition and the affine parametric forms directly from the KKT conditions of the OPF (Eqs. (5)-(13)), not from a self-citation. The classifier and regressions are fitted to historical observations of (X, CR) and (X, pi, q) in Section III and then embedded in the objective (21); the reported revenues are compared with MPEC, which the paper calls 'the theoretical revenue under perfect information,' indicating that the imperfect-information revenues are obtained by evaluating the chosen bids in the same market-clearing process rather than by plugging them back into the fitted surrogate. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: p_k, phi^(k), and psi^(k) are estimated on a training/validation split, and the test intervals are held out. The references to [21]-[23] are background for the CR concept and LICQ and are not used to force the central result. The restriction to the 50 most frequent CRs and the evaluation on the 10 most frequent CRs limits generalization to rare or extreme states, but that is an external-validity caveat, not a circular step. The missing sign in the intermediate Delta-alpha expression in Appendix A is a typo; the final Delta-p expression is algebraically correct, so it does not make the gradient derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the DC-OPF market model, the LICQ condition for the OPF, the stationarity of the historical data distribution, and the assumption that the 50 most frequent critical regions are sufficient. No new physical entities are introduced. The SVM regularization, Platt scaling parameters, regression coefficients, learning rate, and the number of regions are fitted or hand-chosen.

free parameters (8)
  • SVM regularization C = chosen from {0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000} by 5-fold cross-validation
    Controls the soft-margin tolerance for CR overlap; selected per case.
  • Number of critical regions K = 50
    The 50 most frequent CRs are kept, all others filtered; this post-hoc choice affects both accuracy and revenue.
  • Platt scaling parameters A_ij and B_ij = fitted per binary classifier
    Map SVM decision values to pairwise class probabilities.
  • Regression coefficients for phi and psi = fitted per CR
    Estimate LMP and cleared quantity as linear-affine functions within each CR.
  • Learning rate eta = 0.01
    Fixed for gradient descent.
  • Maximum iterations = 200
    Stopping rule for gradient descent.
  • MPEC big-M value = 1000
    Fixed for the benchmark MPEC solution; may cause suboptimality.
  • Cost function coefficients = a=0.1, b=5 in Eq. (26)
    Set uniformly for all generators in the case study.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LICQ holds for DC-OPF
    Used in Propositions 1 and 2 to invert GB GB^T; cited from [21].
  • domain assumption Market clearing is a convex DC-OPF with linear constraints and dual-based LMP
    The entire CR analysis rests on this model.
  • ad hoc to paper Lossy OPF extension uses fixed loss sensitivity and loss distribution factor vectors
    Section II states CR characteristics hold if these vectors are fixed; otherwise CRs overlap.
  • domain assumption Historical data distribution is stationary and representative
    The learned classifier and regressions are applied to bids that may lie outside the training range; no safeguard is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Data-Driven Pool Strategy for Price-Makers Under Imperfect Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4ZCT357

@misc{pith2026241114694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Data-Driven Pool Strategy for Price-Makers Under Imperfect Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4ZCT357}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14694}
}
read the original abstract

This paper studies the pool strategy for price-makers under imperfect information. In this occasion, market participants cannot obtain essential transmission parameters of the power system. Thus, price-makers should estimate the market results with respect to their offer curves using available historical information. The linear programming model of economic dispatch is analyzed with the theory of rim multi-parametric linear programming (rim-MPLP). The characteristics of system patterns (combinations of status flags for generating units and transmission lines) are revealed. A multi-class classification model based on support vector machine (SVM) is trained to map the offer curves to system patterns, which is then integrated into the decision framework of the price-maker. The performance of the proposed method is validated on the IEEE 30-bus system, Illinois synthetic 200-bus system, and South Carolina synthetic 500-bus system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of CRs in a small-sized OPF case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the proposed method. depends on specific rules that differ in different markets. Thus, we consider the following levels of available information: I. Perfect information. All market data and the transmission parameters are available. Under perfect information, the GenCo can construct the MPEC model to evaluate its market power and theoretically achieve maximum rev￾enue. II. Imperfect information. The tra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrix for the 30-bus block-form lossless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example on the change of objective function values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Boxplots of revenues for different generators in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Strategic bidding in competitive electricity markets: a literature survey,

    A. David and F. Wen, “Strategic bidding in competitive electricity markets: a literature survey,” in2000 Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, vol. 4, 2000, pp. 2168–2173

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Modeling methods for GenCo bidding strategy optimization in the liberalized electricity spot market–a state-of-the-art review,

    G. Li, J. Shi, and X. Qu, “Modeling methods for GenCo bidding strategy optimization in the liberalized electricity spot market–a state-of-the-art review,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 4686–4700, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Strategic bidding of transmission- constrained gencos with incomplete information,

    T. Li and M. Shahidehpour, “Strategic bidding of transmission- constrained gencos with incomplete information,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 437–447, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Design and operation of the locational marginal prices- based electricity markets,

    E. Litvinov, “Design and operation of the locational marginal prices- based electricity markets,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 315–323, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Strategic gaming analysis for electric power systems: an MPEC approach,

    B. Hobbs, C. Metzler, and J.-S. Pang, “Strategic gaming analysis for electric power systems: an MPEC approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 638–645, 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Optimal response of an oligopolistic generating company to a competitive pool-based electric power market,

    A. Conejo, J. Contreras, J. Arroyo, and S. de la Torre, “Optimal response of an oligopolistic generating company to a competitive pool-based electric power market,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 424–430, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Price-maker bidding in day-ahead electricity market for a retailer with flexible demands,

    M. Song and M. Amelin, “Price-maker bidding in day-ahead electricity market for a retailer with flexible demands,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1948–1958, 2018

    work page 1948

  8. [8]

    Bidding into electricity markets: A transmission-constrained residual demand derivative approach,

    L. Xu, R. Baldick, and Y . Sutjandra, “Bidding into electricity markets: A transmission-constrained residual demand derivative approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1380–1388, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Residual demand curves for modeling the effect of complex offering conditions on day- ahead electricity markets,

    J. Portela Gonz ´alez, A. Mu ˜noz San Roque, E. F. S ´anchez- ´Ubeda, J. Garc ´ıa-Gonz´alez, and R. Gonz ´alez Hombrados, “Residual demand curves for modeling the effect of complex offering conditions on day- ahead electricity markets,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. ...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Pool strategy of a producer with endogenous formation of locational marginal prices,

    C. Ruiz and A. J. Conejo, “Pool strategy of a producer with endogenous formation of locational marginal prices,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1855–1866, 2009. MANUSCRIPT FOR IEEE TRANSACTIONS, 2022 12 ∆Qij = (P s:s̸=i Asi(−1)1(s<i)2r2 si(1 − rsi)wsi,...

    2009

  3. [11]

    Pool strategy of a price-maker wind power producer,

    M. Zugno, J. M. Morales, P. Pinson, and H. Madsen, “Pool strategy of a price-maker wind power producer,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3440–3450, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    A tutorial review of complementarity models for decision-making in energy markets,

    C. Ruiz, A. J. Conejo, J. D. Fuller, S. A. Gabriel, and B. F. Hobbs, “A tutorial review of complementarity models for decision-making in energy markets,” EURO Journal on Decision Processes , vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 91–120, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Strate- gic bidding for producers in nodal electricity markets: A convex relax- ation approach,

    M. Ghamkhari, A. Sadeghi-Mobarakeh, and H. Mohsenian-Rad, “Strate- gic bidding for producers in nodal electricity markets: A convex relax- ation approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 2324–2336, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    An MPEC approach for analysing the impact of energy storage in imperfect electricity markets,

    Y . Ye, D. Papadaskalopoulos, and G. Strbac, “An MPEC approach for analysing the impact of energy storage in imperfect electricity markets,” in 2016 13th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5

    2016

  7. [15]

    A cluster-based operation model of aggregated battery swapping stations,

    K. ˇSepetanc and H. Pand ˇzi´c, “A cluster-based operation model of aggregated battery swapping stations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 249–260, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Optimal bidding strategies and modeling of im- perfect information among competitive generators,

    F. Wen and A. David, “Optimal bidding strategies and modeling of im- perfect information among competitive generators,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 15–21, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Strategic bidding of transmission- constrained GENCOs with incomplete information,

    T. Li and M. Shahidehpour, “Strategic bidding of transmission- constrained GENCOs with incomplete information,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 437–447, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Market equilibrium under incom- plete and imperfect information in bilateral electricity markets,

    E. Bompard, T. Huang, and L. Yang, “Market equilibrium under incom- plete and imperfect information in bilateral electricity markets,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1231–1240, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Parametric global optimisation for bilevel programming,

    N. P. Fa ´ısca, V . Dua, B. Rustem, P. M. Saraiva, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “Parametric global optimisation for bilevel programming,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 609–623, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    A parametric programming approach to bilevel optimisation with lower-level variables in the upper level,

    H. C. Bylling, S. A. Gabriel, and T. K. Boomsma, “A parametric programming approach to bilevel optimisation with lower-level variables in the upper level,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 846–865, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Short-term congestion forecast- ing in wholesale power markets,

    Q. Zhou, L. Tesfatsion, and C.-C. Liu, “Short-term congestion forecast- ing in wholesale power markets,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2185–2196, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Learning the LMP-load coupling from data: A support vector machine based approach,

    X. Geng and L. Xie, “Learning the LMP-load coupling from data: A support vector machine based approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1127–1138, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Unsupervised congestion status identification using LMP data,

    K. Zheng, Q. Chen, Y . Wang, C. Kang, and L. Xie, “Unsupervised congestion status identification using LMP data,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 726–736, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Gal, Postoptimal Analyses, Parametric Programming, and Related Topics: degeneracy, multicriteria decision making, redundancy , 2nd ed

    T. Gal, Postoptimal Analyses, Parametric Programming, and Related Topics: degeneracy, multicriteria decision making, redundancy , 2nd ed. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995

    1995

  17. [25]

    Marginal loss modeling in LMP calculation,

    E. Litvinov, T. Zheng, G. Rosenwald, and P. Shamsollahi, “Marginal loss modeling in LMP calculation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 880–888, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    An iterative LMP calculation method considering loss distributions,

    Z. Hu, H. Cheng, Z. Yan, and F. Li, “An iterative LMP calculation method considering loss distributions,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1469–1477, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization, 7th ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and compar- isons to regularized likelihood methods,

    J. Platt, “Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and compar- isons to regularized likelihood methods,” in Advances in large margin classifiers, A. J. Smola, P. Bartlett, B. Sch ¨olkopf, and D. Schuurmans, Eds. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2000, pp. 61–74

    2000

  21. [29]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vander- plas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duch- esnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” Journal of Machine ...

    2011

  22. [30]

    LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines,

    C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, “LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , vol. 2, pp. 27:1–27:27, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Probability estimates for multi- class classification by pairwise coupling,

    T.-F. Wu, C.-J. Lin, and R. C. Weng, “Probability estimates for multi- class classification by pairwise coupling,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 5, p. 975–1005, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,

    A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, K. M. Gegner, K. S. Shetye, and T. J. Over- bye, “Grid structural characteristics as validation criteria for synthetic networks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3258–3265, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Mat- power: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,

    R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-S ´anchez, and R. J. Thomas, “Mat- power: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2011. Kedi Zheng (S’17-M’22) received the B....

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.