Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Learning to Optimize Joint Chance-constrained Power Dispatch Problems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LOOP-JCCP claims that a single-pass neural network can replace iterative solvers for joint chance-constrained power dispatch, delivering near-optimal, constraint-respecting decisions at a custom violation probability and…

desk verdict Real speed and a clean architecture, but the feasibility guarantee for the original chance constraint is not established because Eq. (11) is a heuristic surrogate with p tuned on data, not a derived bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12902 v1 pith:FDZYJAPV submitted 2025-01-22 eess.SY cs.SY

Meiyi Li , Javad Mohammadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords machinelearningchance-constrainedoptimizationpowerdispatchvirtualplantexplainableAIpolyhedralreformulationrenewableuncertaintyneuralproxy
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

This paper argues that joint chance-constrained power dispatch, ordinarily solved by iterative optimization that is too slow for real-time use, can be replaced by a single-pass neural network proxy called LOOP-JCCP. The proxy maps a virtual power plant's input parameters and a set of renewable-uncertainty samples directly to a dispatch decision that is near-optimal, respects the constraints, and does so at a customizable violation probability. The intended payoff is practical: operators facing stochastic renewables get millisecond decisions instead of seconds-to-minutes solver runs, with a transparent feasibility module that can be tuned between conservative and cost-efficient behavior. The paper demonstrates the claim on a 50-prosumer VPP, reporting roughly 4.4 percent empirical violations against a 5 percent target and up to a 48,000x speed-up over the scenario-approach baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polyhedral reformulation in equation (11), which converts the joint chance constraint into a single deterministic affine constraint: $A_{\mathrm{ineq}}u+B_{\mathrm{ineq}}x+p\phi_{\max}+(1-p)\phi_{\mathrm{avg}}+b_{\mathrm{ineq}}\le 0$, with $p$ as the safety parameter. Around it sits a set aggregator that computes $\phi_{\mathrm{avg}}$ and $\phi_{\max}$ from the sample set in a permutation-invariant way, making the network insensitive to sample order and sample count. Feasibility is made hard by LOOP-LC2.0-style completion modules: equality completion eliminates dependent variables through a linear map $F$, and inequality completion applies a generalized gauge map $T$ that projects any raw prediction into the reformulated feasible set. The whole pipeline maps $x$ and the sample set to a feasible $u$ in a single forward pass, with $p$ adjustable after training.

What would settle it

Take the trained model with its selected $p=0.68$ and feed it out-of-sample scenarios drawn from a heavier-tailed or shifted renewable-forecast-error distribution, then measure the joint violation rate; if the rate substantially exceeds the target $\epsilon=0.05$ for every $p\in[0,1]$, the customizable-probability claim fails for that regime. A sharper test is to construct a two-constraint example with skewed samples where the true chance-constrained feasible set is not contained in the $p$-interpolated polyhedron for any $p$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a neural network can learn to solve the joint chance-constrained problem in one shot: given input parameters $x$ and a sample set $\{\epsilon^{[k]}\}$, the network outputs a dispatch $u$ that is feasible for the polyhedral surrogate constraint $A_{\mathrm{ineq}}u+B_{\mathrm{ineq}}x+p\phi_{\max}+(1-p)\phi_{\mathrm{avg}}+b_{\mathrm{ineq}}\le 0$, where $\phi_{\max}$ and $\phi_{\mathrm{avg}}$ are the sample-wise maximum and average of $C_{\mathrm{ineq}}\epsilon$, and where $p\in[0,1]$ interpolates between average-case and worst-case behavior. The feasibility module then enforces this surrogate exactly, using variable elimination for equality constraints and a gauge map for inequalities, so the prediction is always feasible for the reformulated problem. The paper claims this yields near-optimal solutions whose empirical violation rate tracks the target $\epsilon$ as $p$ is tuned, with execution time about 0.0034 seconds per instance in the VPP test case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the deterministic constraint blending the worst-case and average sample terms, with $p$ tuned on data, is a faithful surrogate for the original joint chance constraint; the paper does not prove any theoretical relation between $p$ and the actual violation probability, so the guarantee is a calibration rather than a derived bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained LOOP-JCCP model answers a joint chance-constrained VPP dispatch in about three milliseconds, enabling real-time and rolling-horizon operation.
  • Changing the safety parameter $p$ shifts the solution between average-case and all-scenario feasibility, so one model can serve different risk tolerances without retraining.
  • Because the set aggregator uses max and mean over samples, the model accepts online sample sets of any size or order, easing integration with live forecasts.
  • The closed-form feasibility module means every output provably satisfies the surrogate constraints, giving operators an auditable, explainable decision.
  • The same architecture applies to any affine joint chance-constrained problem with sample data, not only VPP dispatch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the 'probability guarantee' is an empirical calibration: $p$ is chosen offline to make the violation rate land near $\epsilon$, and nothing in the construction bounds how far the true rate can drift on out-of-distribution samples.
  • A natural extension is to replace the max/mean aggregation with quantile or expectile statistics, which would give a more direct handle on the violation probability at the cost of losing the simple polyhedral form.
  • The optimality gap of LOOP-JCCP is inherited from the polyhedral reformulation itself; since the surrogate is only an approximation of the chance constraint, the roughly 10 percent cost increase over the scenario-approach baseline likely mixes reformulation error and learning error.
  • The architecture should transfer to distributionally robust or AC-network variants where uncertainty enters nonlinearly, but then the max/mean aggregator and the gauge map would need to be re-derived for non-polyhedral sets.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes LOOP-JCCP, a neural-network-based single-shot approximator for joint chance-constrained power dispatch in virtual power plants (VPPs). The model takes as input the parameters x and a set of uncertainty samples {ε[k]}, and outputs a solution u. It combines a set aggregator that computes the average and maximum of C_ineq ε[k], a fully connected optimization module, and a closed-form feasibility module inherited from the authors' earlier LOOP-LC 2.0 work. The central algorithmic idea is a 'polyhedron reformulation' (Eq. 11) that replaces the joint chance constraint (4c) with a deterministic inequality involving p times the sample-wise maximum plus (1−p) times the sample average, where p ∈ [0,1] is a safety parameter. The authors claim the model yields near-optimal solutions that are feasible for the original chance-constrained problem with a customizable violation probability, and demonstrate on a 50-prosumer VPP example that the method is orders of magnitude faster than solver-based alternatives. The paper also provides empirical violation rates for several reformulation strategies.

Significance. If the feasibility guarantee were valid, the paper would be a valuable contribution to learning-to-optimize methods for power systems: it proposes a permutation-invariant, sample-size-agnostic architecture, a closed-form gauge-map projection that exactly enforces affine equality and inequality constraints, and reports substantial computational speedups. The set aggregation scheme and the use of a hard-feasibility layer are sensible engineering choices. However, the paper does not prove any relation between the surrogate (11) and the original joint chance constraint (4c), and the one presented counterexample shows the surrogate can be satisfied while the original constraint is violated with probability far above ε. The reported 'guarantees' are therefore empirical calibration results, not guarantees. The strengths lie in the architecture and speed; the central probabilistic feasibility claim is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C1, Eq. (11)] The so-called polyhedron reformulation is not shown to be a valid surrogate for the joint chance constraint (4c). No equivalence, safe-approximation, or sample-complexity relation links satisfaction of (11) to P(A_ineq u + B_ineq x + C_ineq ε + b_ineq ≤ 0) ≥ 1−ε. Concretely, take scalar C=1, ε uniformly ±1, p=0.5. Then ϕmax=1, ϕavg=0 and (11) holds whenever A_ineq u + B_ineq x + b_ineq ≤ -0.5, e.g., at equality -0.5, but the original constraint fails for ε=+1, i.e., with probability 0.5, far above ε=0.05. Thus p does not control the violation probability of (4c); it only controls the surrogate (11). The paper's statement that 'manipulating p adjusts the probability that the solution adheres to constraints (4b) and (11)' (Section III-C1) is about the surrogate, not the original.
  2. [Section IV-B and IV-C, Fig. 5 and Table I] The safety parameter p=0.68 is selected offline by scanning training data until the empirical violation rate is near 5%. This is calibration on the training distribution and does not provide an out-of-sample probability guarantee. The reported violation rates (e.g., 4.37% out-of-sample) are descriptive statistics for one test set, not guarantees. The paper's abstract and conclusion claim 'feasibility guarantees' and 'theoretical justifications,' but no such guarantee is derived; the only guarantee is hard feasibility with respect to the deterministic set {(4b),(11)}.
  3. [Section III-D2, Eq. (18)] The loss function trains the network to match u*_PR, the optimal solution of the polyhedron-reformulated problem (13), not the original joint chance-constrained problem (4). Consequently, even if training perfectly replicates u*_PR, near-optimality and feasibility claims hold only for the surrogate. The paper does not bound the suboptimality with respect to (4) nor the gap between the feasible sets of (11) and (4c). This is load-bearing because the stated contribution is solving the original joint chance-constrained dispatch problem.
  4. [Section III-C2, Eqs. (15)-(17)] The gauge-map feasibility projection enforces membership in SRef, i.e., in {(4b),(11)}. This is exact by construction, but it cannot repair the failure of (11) to represent (4c). The 'hard, transparent guarantees' advertised in the introduction are therefore properties of a different, simpler constraint set. This point follows from the previous comments, but it should be stated explicitly because the paper repeatedly highlights the feasibility module as the source of its guarantees.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III heading] The heading 'MACHINE LEANING METHOD' appears to be a typo for 'MACHINE LEARNING METHOD'; please correct.
  2. [Section II-B3, after Eq. (7c)] The text says 'D{r} represents the rth row vector in matrix D,' but D has not been defined and (7c) uses C{r}; this is confusing and should be fixed.
  3. [Eq. (3b)] The displayed expression for the prosumer output under uncertainty includes a duplicated P_i_NG term; as printed, the constraint is inconsistent with the definition of P_i_o in (1d) and with the compact form (4c). The intended expression should be (P_i_G - α_i_G Σ_j ε_j) - (P_i_L + α_i_L Σ_j ε_j) + (P_i_NG + ε_i) - P_i_IL.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The participation factor formula appears to be missing a division sign; as printed, it reads as a product rather than a ratio.
  5. [Throughout] The notation 'LOOP − J CCP' is typeset inconsistently (e.g., 'LOOP-JCCP' in the abstract); please unify the notation.
  6. [Section IV-C, Table I] The 'Time improvement' values are reported as e.g., '48000x' without clarifying whether they compare solution times on the same hardware/software stack or include offline training time; please state the basis of the comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The advertised feasibility guarantee is a calibrated property of the surrogate polyhedron (11), not a derived guarantee for the original joint chance constraint (4c); p is tuned on training/validation data until the empirical violation rate matches the target.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III-C.1 (Eq. 11), Sec. III-D.1, Sec. IV-B/C (Table I)]
    "Therefore, by manipulating the safety parameter p, the feasibility module can adjust the probability that the solution adheres to constraints (4b) and (11). ... After offline training, we selected safety parameters s = 1.98 for the robust optimization method and p = 0.68 for the proposed LOOP − J CCP model."

    The paper does not derive any analytic relation between p and the original violation probability. Instead, Sec. III-D.1 states that safety parameters 'are selected offline using both in-sample and out-sample training datasets,' and p = 0.68 is chosen so that the empirical violation rate lands near the 5% target (Table I: in-sample 4.4791%, out-sample 4.3666%). Thus the 'customizable probability setting' is a fitted calibration on training/validation data, not a predicted or proven property of the model or of Eq. (11). Moreover, the hard feasibility module only enforces membership in S = {(4b), (11)}; no equivalence or safe-approximation between Eq. (11) and the original joint chance constraint (4c) is established.

full rationale

There is no circularity in the speed or near-optimality experiments: LOOP-JCCP is honestly trained to imitate the polyhedron reformulation (13), tested on held-out data, and the LOOP-LC 2.0 / gauge-map machinery is described in-paper with equations (14)-(17), so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. The circularity concern is confined to the central advertised feasibility claim: the model's hard guarantee is, by construction, only membership in the surrogate set S = {(4b),(11)}, and the adjustable violation probability is obtained by tuning p on training/validation data until the empirical violation rate matches epsilon = 0.05. That is a fitted outcome, not a derived prediction with respect to the original joint chance constraint (4c). Because the central feasibility claim is affected while the speed and empirical near-optimality claims retain independent content, a moderate score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method depends on the unproven polyhedron surrogate and on the fitted safety parameter p, plus a projection step taken from the authors' prior work.

free parameters (1)
  • safety parameter p = 0.68
    Selected on the out-sample training dataset to achieve the target violation rate near 5%. The paper treats p as an adjustable knob; the resulting feasibility claim depends on this fitted value (Section IV-B).
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The polyhedron reformulation (11), using a convex combination of the elementwise max and average of uncertainty terms, adequately approximates the original joint chance constraint (4c) for some p in [0,1].
    No theoretical link is derived between p and the violation probability. The paper only tunes p on data to get the desired violation rate.
  • domain assumption The gauge-map projection from LOOP-LC 2.0 preserves near-optimality of the neural network's raw prediction.
    The paper relies on the authors' prior work [28] for this projection without verifying its optimality properties in this setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The average and maximum of the linearized uncertainty terms are sufficient statistics for the joint chance constraint.
    The set aggregator only uses mean and max features; there is no justification that other statistics are not needed for feasibility or optimality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Optimize Joint Chance-constrained Power Dispatch Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDZYJAPV

@misc{pith2026250112902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Optimize Joint Chance-constrained Power Dispatch Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDZYJAPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12902}
}
read the original abstract

The ever-increasing integration of stochastic renewable energy sources into power systems operation is making the supply-demand balance more challenging. While joint chance-constrained methods are equipped to model these complexities and uncertainties, solving these models using the traditional iterative solvers is time-consuming and can hinder real-time implementation. To overcome the shortcomings of today's solvers, we propose a fast, scalable, and explainable machine learning-based optimization proxy. Our solution, called Learning to Optimize the Optimization of Joint Chance-Constrained Problems (LOOP-JCCP), is iteration-free and solves the underlying problem in a single-shot. Our model uses a polyhedral reformulation of the original problem to manage constraint violations and ensure solution feasibility across various scenarios through customizable probability settings. To this end, we build on our recent deterministic solution (LOOP-LC 2.0) by incorporating a set aggregator module to handle uncertain sample sets of varying sizes and complexities. Our results verify the feasibility of our near-optimal solutions for joint chance-constrained power dispatch scenarios. Additionally, our feasibility guarantees increase the transparency and interpretability of our method, which is essential for operators to trust the outcomes. We showcase the effectiveness of our model in solving the stochastic energy management problem of Virtual Power Plants (VPPs). Our numerical findings complement our theoretical justifications and demonstrate great flexibility in parameter tuning, adaptability to diverse datasets, and increased computational speed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the VPP in this study, highlighting uncertainties from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LOOP − J CCP model as an alternative to iterative solvers to deal with the task of repeatedly solving power dispatch optimization for VPPs. 1) Near-optimality: The model’s output should closely ap￾proximate the optimal solution of problem (4). 2) Feasibility Assurance: It should ensure that the con￾straints are met, adhering to a customizable probability setting of 1 − ε. 3) Scalability and Flexibility: The model mu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the proposed LOOP − J CCP model, which integrates the LOOP − LC 2.0 structure [28] with a novel polyhedron reformulation. This model efficiently learns solutions to joint chance-constrained power dispatch problems within VPPs, delivering near-optimal approximations and ensuring feasibility with customizable probabilities. By incorporating XAI components, such as the set aggregate module and the closed-f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flow chart of safe parameter selection for the proposed model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparative analysis of robust optimization, polyhedron reformulation, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We evaluate four key characteristics of different methods: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Coordinating distributed en- ergy resources for reliability can significantly reduce future distribution grid upgrades and peak load,

    T. Navidi, A. El Gamal, and R. Rajagopal, “Coordinating distributed en- ergy resources for reliability can significantly reduce future distribution grid upgrades and peak load,” Joule, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1769–1792, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A review of methods and applications,

    L. A. Roald, D. Pozo, A. Papavasiliou, D. K. Molzahn, J. Kazempour, and A. Conejo, “Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A review of methods and applications,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 214, p. 108725, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Data-driven Decision Making with Probabilistic Guarantees (Part 1): A Schematic Overview of Chance-constrained Optimization

    X. Geng and L. Xie, “Data-driven decision making with probabilistic guarantees (part 1): A schematic overview of chance-constrained opti- mization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10621 , 2019. ACCEPTED BY CSEE JOURNAL OF POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS IN DEC. 2024 10

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

  4. [4]

    Joint chance constraints in ac optimal power flow: Improving bounds through learning,

    K. Baker and A. Bernstein, “Joint chance constraints in ac optimal power flow: Improving bounds through learning,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 6376–6385, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Data-driven tuning for chance constrained optimization: analysis and extensions,

    A. M. Hou and L. A. Roald, “Data-driven tuning for chance constrained optimization: analysis and extensions,” Top, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 649–682, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A risk-averse day-ahead bidding strategy of transactive energy sharing microgrids with data- driven chance constraints,

    Y . Wang, Q. Yang, Y . Zhou, and Y . Zheng, “A risk-averse day-ahead bidding strategy of transactive energy sharing microgrids with data- driven chance constraints,” Applied Energy, vol. 353, p. 122093, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Joint chance-constrained eco- nomic dispatch involving joint optimization of frequency-related inverter control and regulation reserve allocation,

    Y . Tian, Z. Li, W. Wu, and M. Fan, “Joint chance-constrained eco- nomic dispatch involving joint optimization of frequency-related inverter control and regulation reserve allocation,” CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Stochastic- distributionally robust frequency-constrained optimal planning for an isolated microgrid,

    L. Yang, H. Li, H. Zhang, Q. Wu, and X. Cao, “Stochastic- distributionally robust frequency-constrained optimal planning for an isolated microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient scenario generation for chance-constrained economic dispatch considering ambient wind condi- tions,

    Q. Zhang, A. Shukla, and L. Xie, “Efficient scenario generation for chance-constrained economic dispatch considering ambient wind condi- tions,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Addressing wind power forecast errors in day-ahead pricing with energy storage systems: A distributionally robust joint chance-constrained approach,

    A. Zhou, M. Yang, X. Fang, and Y . Zhang, “Addressing wind power forecast errors in day-ahead pricing with energy storage systems: A distributionally robust joint chance-constrained approach,” IEEE Trans- actions on Sustainable Energy , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Data- driven joint distributionally robust chance-constrained operation for multiple integrated electricity and heating systems,

    J. Zhai, Y . Jiang, M. Zhou, Y . Shi, W. Chen, and C. N. Jones, “Data- driven joint distributionally robust chance-constrained operation for multiple integrated electricity and heating systems,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    The scenario approach to robust control design,

    G. C. Calafiore and M. C. Campi, “The scenario approach to robust control design,” IEEE Transactions on automatic control, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 742–753, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Dc optimal power flow with joint chance constraints,

    A. Pena-Ordieres, D. K. Molzahn, L. A. Roald, and A. W ¨achter, “Dc optimal power flow with joint chance constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 147–158, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Security constrained optimal power flow with distributionally robust chance constraints,

    L. Roald, F. Oldewurtel, B. Van Parys, and G. Andersson, “Security constrained optimal power flow with distributionally robust chance constraints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.06061 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Data-driven tuning for chance-constrained optimization: Two steps towards probabilistic performance guarantees,

    A. M. Hou and L. A. Roald, “Data-driven tuning for chance-constrained optimization: Two steps towards probabilistic performance guarantees,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 1400–1405, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Distributionally robust optimal scheduling with heterogeneous uncertainty information: A framework for hydrogen systems,

    A. Zhou, M. E. Khodayar, and J. Wang, “Distributionally robust optimal scheduling with heterogeneous uncertainty information: A framework for hydrogen systems,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Low-carbon economic dispatch con- sidering wind curtailment: A distributionally robust chance-constrained approach,

    L. Yang, Z. Li, Y . Xu, and H. Sun, “Low-carbon economic dispatch con- sidering wind curtailment: A distributionally robust chance-constrained approach,” CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems , 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Predicting ac optimal power flows: Combining deep learning and lagrangian dual methods,

    F. Fioretto, T. W. Mak, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Predicting ac optimal power flows: Combining deep learning and lagrangian dual methods,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 34, pp. 630–637, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Deepopf: A deep neural network approach for security-constrained dc optimal power flow,

    X. Pan, T. Zhao, M. Chen, and S. Zhang, “Deepopf: A deep neural network approach for security-constrained dc optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1725–1735, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Learning-accelerated admm for distributed dc optimal power flow,

    D. Biagioni, P. Graf, X. Zhang, A. S. Zamzam, K. Baker, and J. King, “Learning-accelerated admm for distributed dc optimal power flow,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 1–6, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Learning to optimize distributed optimization: Admm-based dc-opf case study,

    M. Li, S. Kolouri, and J. Mohammadi, “Learning to optimize distributed optimization: Admm-based dc-opf case study,” in 2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Machine learning infused distributed op- timization for coordinating virtual power plant assets,

    M. Li and J. Mohammadi, “Machine learning infused distributed op- timization for coordinating virtual power plant assets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17882, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Energy management of pv-storage systems: Policy approximations using machine learning,

    C. Keerthisinghe, A. C. Chapman, and G. Verbi ˇc, “Energy management of pv-storage systems: Policy approximations using machine learning,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 257– 265, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Chance-constrained outage scheduling using a machine learning proxy,

    G. Dalal, E. Gilboa, S. Mannor, and L. Wehenkel, “Chance-constrained outage scheduling using a machine learning proxy,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2528–2540, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Deep learning based distributionally robust joint chance constrained economic dispatch under wind power uncertainty,

    C. Ning and F. You, “Deep learning based distributionally robust joint chance constrained economic dispatch under wind power uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 191–203, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Joint chance-constrained unit commitment: Statistically feasible robust optimization with learning-to- optimize acceleration,

    J. Liang, W. Jiang, C. Lu, and C. Wu, “Joint chance-constrained unit commitment: Statistically feasible robust optimization with learning-to- optimize acceleration,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Learning to solve optimization problems with hard linear constraints,

    M. Li, S. Kolouri, and J. Mohammadi, “Learning to solve optimization problems with hard linear constraints,” IEEE Access, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Toward rapid, optimal, and feasible power dispatch through generalized neural mapping,

    M. Li and J. Mohammadi, “Toward rapid, optimal, and feasible power dispatch through generalized neural mapping,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04838, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Consensus+ innovations approach for distributed multiagent coordination in a microgrid,

    G. Hug, S. Kar, and C. Wu, “Consensus+ innovations approach for distributed multiagent coordination in a microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1893–1903, 2015

    1903

  22. [30]

    H. Sun, H. Xu, and Y . Wang, “Asymptotic analysis of sample average approximation for stochastic optimization problems with joint chance constraints via conditional value at risk and difference of convex functions,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , vol. 161, p...

    2014

  23. [31]

    Deep sets,

    M. Zaheer, S. Kottur, S. Ravanbakhsh, B. Poczos, R. R. Salakhutdinov, and A. J. Smola, “Deep sets,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Teaching networks to solve optimization problems,

    X. Liu, Y . Lu, A. Abbasi, M. Li, J. Mohammadi, and S. Kolouri, “Teaching networks to solve optimization problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04104, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fractional order agc for distributed energy resources using robust optimization,

    I. Pan and S. Das, “Fractional order agc for distributed energy resources using robust optimization,” IEEE transactions on smart grid , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2175–2186, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Real-time load data for new york city’s central park,

    N. Y . I. S. Operator, “Real-time load data for new york city’s central park,” 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Nrel solar radiation research laboratory (srrl): Baseline measurement system (bms); golden, colorado (data),

    T. Stoffel and A. Andreas, “Nrel solar radiation research laboratory (srrl): Baseline measurement system (bms); golden, colorado (data),” tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 1981

    1981

  28. [36]

    Weather data for new york city’s central park,

    N. W. Service, “Weather data for new york city’s central park,” 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual.” Meiyi Li obtained her B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni- versity, Shanghai, China, in 2017 and 2020, respec- tively. She began her Ph.D. at Carnegie Mellon Uni- versity, Pi...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.