Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Data-Driven Distributionally Robust Optimization for Long-Term Contract vs. Spot Allocation Decisions: Application to Electricity Markets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper shows that a Wasserstein DRO model yields the same aggregate risk-reward tradeoff curves as CVaR for contract-versus-spot allocation, with nodal decisions governed by a covariance-derived penalty matrix.

desk verdict A competent application of standard CVaR and Wasserstein DRO machinery whose DRO penalty has a real dimension/time mismatch; the numerical comparison needs test-data validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15340 v1 pith:SUSVYKQD submitted 2025-01-25 math.OC econ.GNq-fin.EC

Dimitri J. Papageorgiou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCecon.GNq-fin.EC MSC 90C1590C90
keywords data-drivendistributionallyrobustoptimizationWassersteinmetricconditionalvalue-at-riskpriceelasticityelectricitymarketspowerportfoliolong-termcontractsPJM
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

An electricity seller must split supply between fixed-price long-term contracts and volatile spot markets. This paper asks whether a data-driven distributionally robust optimization (DRO) model over a Wasserstein ball can serve as a practical alternative to conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) for making that split. Using PJM market data, it finds that the two risk-averse models produce the same aggregate tradeoff between expected profit and tail risk, provided the Wasserstein radius and the CVaR confidence level are chosen so that both induce the same spot allocation. The DRO model differs at the nodal level: its penalty term drives sales away from nodes with large entries in the covariance-derived matrix $Q$, the Cholesky factor of price-deviation covariances. A sympathetic reader would care because the DRO approach needs no assumed distribution, only an ambiguity radius, and its nodal behavior traces back to an interpretable risk matrix.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the penalty term in Formulation (5), $\epsilon \sum_{s\in S}\pi_s\|Q^\top y_s^{Spot}\|_{p^*}$, inside a data-driven DRO model over a type-$\infty$ Wasserstein ball. The matrix $Q$ is the Cholesky factor of the empirical covariance $\Sigma$ of locational marginal price deviations from the system-wide PJM price, i.e., $Q=R^\top$ where $R^\top R=\Sigma$, and it enters through the affine price model $p=Q\xi+q$ with $E[\xi]=0$ and $\mathrm{Cov}(\xi)=I$. That affine model makes the DRO penalty a covariance-weighted norm of the spot allocation vector, which is what converts distributional ambiguity into a linear-programming-tractable penalization. The comparison metric is $\rho_\gamma(y^{Spot})=\Delta\zeta(y^{Spot})/\Delta\chi_\gamma(y^{Spot})$, the increase in expected profit per unit decrease in the expected $(1-\gamma)$-tail profit relative to the risk-free all-contract allocation.

What would settle it

Take a PJM year not used to build the scenarios, re-solve the CVaR and DRO models on training data, then compare realized profit and tail profit of the two allocations on the hold-out year; if DRO performs worse than CVaR at matched aggregate spot allocations, or if the Figure 8 nodal ranking flips when $Q$ is built from a tail-consistent rather than empirical-covariance estimate, the paper's central equivalence claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Formulation (5) — the two-stage DRO model with a type-$\infty$ Wasserstein ball and penalty $\epsilon \sum_{s\in S}\pi_s\|Q^\top y_s^{Spot}\|_*$ — is a tractable and decision-relevant alternative to the CVaR model (4). Across two PJM case studies, the CVaR confidence level $\alpha$ and the Wasserstein radius $\epsilon$ can be paired so that both models induce the same aggregate long-term-versus-spot allocation, and at those paired parameters the two models trace out identical 'change in expected profit per change in tail risk' curves $\rho_\gamma(y^{Spot})$. At the nodal level the models part ways: the DRO penalty weights each node's spot sales through $Q^\top$, so nodes with large diagonal entries of $Q$ (Bridgewa, Atlantic, HCS) and large cross-entries lose spot allocation as $\epsilon$ grows, roughly in the order of their $Q_{m,m}$ values. The paper also shows that the elasticity of spot prices to the seller's own volume matters: including it lowers the reward-per-risk ratio because extra supply depresses high-price events. The author presents this as numerical evidence for DRO as a practical, parameter-light way to hedge distributional ambiguity in portfolio allocation, while explicitly leaving out-of-sample validation of the two models to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical case for DRO rests on spot prices being affine in a zero-mean identity-covariance basis vector with a fixed covariance matrix; if real price dynamics have time-varying volatility, jumps, or tail dependence that a covariance matrix cannot capture, the DRO penalty mis-weights spot allocations and the nodal rankings in Figure 8 are not robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stakeholders can use the $\rho_\gamma$ tradeoff curves to translate a desired reward-per-risk ratio into a spot allocation range, without committing to a single $\alpha$ or $\epsilon$.
  • The DRO model is an LP (for $p=\infty$) and solves in under a minute on both PJM case studies, so the ambiguity-averse approach is computationally practical.
  • In the DRO model, increasing $\epsilon$ shifts supply from spot to long-term contracts, with the order of withdrawal across nodes governed by the diagonal and off-diagonal entries of $Q$.
  • The same aggregate tradeoff curve arises from both models, implying that $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$ are interchangeable knobs for aggregate risk-return decisions even though they encode different philosophies (known worst-case quantile vs. ambiguity radius).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the aggregate equivalence between CVaR and Wasserstein DRO holds more generally, it would suggest a formal duality between tail-risk levels and Wasserstein radii for linear two-stage problems with ellipsoidal uncertainty; the paper does not prove such a duality, only observes it numerically.
  • The Q-matrix mechanism is essentially a mean-variance-style penalty, so the DRO formulation could be extended to other process-systems allocation problems by plugging in any covariance derived from historical price data, even outside electricity.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace the empirical covariance with a dynamic or tail-consistent risk matrix (e.g., from a GARCH or copula model) and see whether the nodal rankings in Figure 8 persist; this would separate the DRO mechanism itself from the specific affine-covariance assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a medium-term generation company problem of allocating supply between long-term fixed-price contracts and volatile spot markets. It formulates a risk-neutral stochastic program, a CVaR-based risk-averse program, and a Wasserstein distributionally robust program, all with a price-elasticity-aware spot market representation. Two case studies on PJM data are used to compare the CVaR and DRO models in terms of a reward-to-risk metric as a function of spot allocation, and to examine nodal allocation differences. The central claims are that the DRO model is a tractable alternative to CVaR, that both trace the same reward-to-risk tradeoff curves, and that the DRO penalty produces different nodal allocations because the estimated covariance-derived matrix Q weights spot sales asymmetrically.

Significance. If the technical issues were resolved, the paper would be a useful applied contribution: it brings a data-driven Wasserstein DRO model to a realistic contract-versus-spot allocation problem, includes price elasticity in a practically motivated staircase form, uses real PJM market data, and honestly reports several limitations. The paper is clearly written and the CVaR formulation is standard and correctly transcribed. However, the central numerical comparison is weakened by the post hoc selection of (alpha, epsilon) pairs, the absence of any out-of-sample validation, and a DRO penalty term in Eq. (5a) that is not well defined for the decision variables as indexed. These issues affect the main comparative conclusions and the nodal ranking claims, so the contribution is not yet established as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (5a)] The DRO penalty term epsilon * sum_s pi_s ||Q^T y_s^Spot||_{p*} is not well defined as written. Q is in R^{|M| x |M|}, but y_s^Spot in constraints (2b)-(2m) is indexed by (m,k,t). Q^T y_s^Spot is not a matrix-vector product unless y_s^Spot is first aggregated over k and t into a per-market vector, and no such aggregate is defined. The paper also states in Section 3 that the covariance matrix 'only captures the covariance between markets, not in the time dimension,' so even after an ad hoc aggregation the penalty would ignore the temporal price risk that is central to the long-term-versus-spot tradeoff. Please define y_s^Spot explicitly as an aggregate per-market vector, or replace the penalty with a sum over time periods (e.g., epsilon * sum_s pi_s * sum_t ||Q^T sum_k y^Spot_{mkts}||_*) and re-derive the reformulation from the specified Wasserstein ball. Until this is resolved, Figures 5, 7, and 8 are not supported by Eq. (5a).
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 4] The central claim that CVaR and DRO 'produce the same tradeoff curves' is an artifact of the post-processing. The paper states: 'We generated Figure 5 by independently solving Model (4), while varying the confidence level alpha, and Model (5), while varying the Wasserstein radius epsilon. We then selected (alpha, epsilon) pairs that lead to the same spot allocation percentage shown on the horizontal axis.' Matching the horizontal coordinate by construction forces the plotted points of the two models to lie on the same curve; this is not independent evidence that the models are equivalent. The comparison should instead be performed on fixed parameter grids or with a principled matching rule, followed by out-of-sample evaluation. As it stands, the conclusion in Section 4 that the approaches 'converge to the same decisions depending on the parameter values chosen' is a selection rule rather than a finding.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 4] The numerical comparison lacks any out-of-sample or test-data validation. The paper explicitly states: 'In machine learning vernacular, we solved both models on "training" data and should perform an independent experiment on "test" data to validate the performance of each. This validation step is out of scope for this work.' Without such validation, the claims that DRO is a practical, reliable alternative and that the nodal allocation rankings in Figure 8 are meaningful are not supported. At a minimum, a holdout evaluation should be added, or the claims should be reframed as a modeling and tractability study without comparative performance statements.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Section 3] The derivation of Eq. (5a) from Xie [2020, Prop. 3] is not shown, and the assumed affine price model p = Q*xi + q is not connected to the empirical scenarios used in (2b). In particular, q is set to the system-wide mean LMP times a vector of ones, which would imply E[p_m] is identical across all nodes, while Table 2 reports node-specific mean LMPs ranging from 65.16 to 78.14 $/MWh. The q vector also does not appear in (5a), so the role of the affine model in the DRO reformulation is unclear. Please provide the full dual reformulation or state explicitly which variables are the recourse decisions and how Q and q are estimated from the data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text says the long-term contract price starts at 62 $/MWh, but the formula reads 'Wc = 38 - (c - 1)'; this appears to be a typo and should be Wc = 62 - (c - 1).
  2. [Table 2] The last row for PJM reports median 57.055 and mean 115.58 with the standard deviation also 115.58; please verify these values and the formatting, since mean equal to standard deviation would be a striking coincidence.
  3. [Section 2.3] There is a typo in 'stastically close' which should be 'statistically close'.
  4. [Figure 6] The heat map of the Q^T matrix in Figure 6 lacks a color scale and axis labels; please add them so the reader can interpret the magnitudes discussed in the text.
  5. [Nomenclature] The symbol P is used both for the set of distributions in the ambiguity set and for prices (Pmkts); please use a distinct symbol for the ambiguity set to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'same tradeoff curve' result for Case Study 1 is an alignment artifact: matching the horizontal-axis spot allocation fixes ySpot uniquely, so the coincident CVaR/DRO curves are forced rather than independently predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Figure 5 discussion) and Section 4]
    "We generated Figure 5 by independently solving Model (4), while varying the confidence level α, and Model (5), while varying the Wasserstein radius ε. We then selected (α, ε) pairs that lead to the same spot allocation percentage shown on the horizontal axis. ... Figures 5 and 7 reveal that the CVaR and DRO approaches both produce the same “change in reward per change in risk” tradeoff curves, just in a different manner."

    In Case Study 1 the paper sets |M|=1, X+_mc=0, Lt=Ut=500, a single supply cost, and no transportation. Constraint (2d) then forces the total spot volume in every (t,s) to equal 500−L, where L=Σ_c xmin_mc is the aggregate long-term volume. Because the spot elasticity steps have monotonically decreasing prices P1ts>P2ts>..., any profit-improving objective fills the highest-price steps first, so the whole vector ySpot is uniquely determined by the aggregate spot allocation percentage shown on the horizontal axis. The metric ργ(ySpot) is defined from the scenario profits z_s(ySpot), so once an (α,ε) pair is selected to match the horizontal-axis spot percentage, both models have the same ySpot and therefore the same ργ.

full rationale

The DRO formulation (5) is taken from an external, machine-checkable source (Xie 2020, Prop. 3), and the Q-matrix construction is stated openly as an ellipsoidal modeling choice, so no load-bearing self-citation or imported-uniqueness chain is present. The self-citations that do appear (e.g., Kumaran et al. 2021 for the k-means knee point) are methodological and not central to the derivation. The most significant circular element is the Case Study 1 comparison: because the spot allocation percentage uniquely determines ySpot and hence ργ, the 'same tradeoff curve' conclusion for Figure 5 is an alignment artifact rather than an independent numerical result. Case Study 2 retains independent content: matching the aggregate spot allocation does not determine the nodal ySpot vector, and the paper's Figure 8 shows that DRO and CVaR make genuinely different nodal allocation choices. The paper's own admission that Σ 'only captures the covariance between markets, not in the time dimension' is a correctness and modeling-fidelity concern, not a circularity, so it does not by itself raise the score. Overall, one of the paper's central comparative predictions reduces by construction, while other results are self-contained; this is partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard CVaR and Wasserstein DRO reformulations from the cited literature, plus several domain assumptions about market structure, price elasticity, and scenario generation. The main user-chosen parameters are alpha, epsilon, lambda, gamma, the elasticity staircase, and the cluster count; the Q matrix is estimated from the same in-sample data. No fundamentally new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda (CVaR weight) = 0.01 (Case Study 1), 0.10 (Case Study 2)
    User-defined weight balancing expected profit and CVaR tail profit; chosen by the author, not estimated from data.
  • alpha (CVaR confidence level) = varied over (0,1) in both case studies
    Swept parameter; selected (alpha,epsilon) pairs determine the spot allocation level on the tradeoff curves.
  • epsilon (Wasserstein radius) = varied; matched to alpha to hit target spot allocations
    No data-driven calibration is provided; the radius is treated as a user risk parameter and matched to CVaR outcomes for comparison.
  • gamma (tail level for reward-to-risk metric) = 0.90 and 0.95
    Chosen by the author to define the lower-tail risk measure in the comparison metric.
  • Spot price elasticity step width and decrement = 25 MW and 0.2 $/MWh (Case 1); 50 MW and 1 $/MWh (Case 2); 20 and 10 steps
    Describes how much the spot price falls as the generator sells more; values are assumed, not estimated from market data.
  • k (number of scenarios/clusters) = 100 (Case Study 1), 1094 (Case Study 2)
    Selected via k-means knee-point heuristic; the scenario set affects all numerical results.
  • Q matrix = Cholesky factor of empirical covariance of LMP deviations (10x10 in Case 2)
    Estimated from the same historical PJM data used to build scenarios; drives the DRO penalty and nodal allocation results.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Two-stage DRO over the type-infinity Wasserstein ball has the tractable reformulation (5a)-(5b) as given by Xie [2020, Prop. 3].
    The paper does not derive the reformulation; it assumes the cited proposition and its conditions hold.
  • standard math CVaR can be linearized with auxiliary variables vVaR and l_s as in Noyan [2012].
    Formulation (4) uses this standard linearization; correctness is assumed from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption There is no cross-market price elasticity; each market's spot price depends only on volume sold in that market.
    Section 2 states this simplification; it allows the separable staircase model and is used in both case studies.
  • domain assumption Spot prices follow the affine model p = Q*xi + q with E[xi] = 0 and Cov(xi) = I.
    Sections 2.3 and 3 define the DRO ambiguity set through this affine map; Q is the Cholesky factor of the empirical covariance.
  • domain assumption k-means clustering with the empirical sample nearest to each centroid produces a scenario set adequate for risk analysis.
    Section 3 uses this procedure; the authors note k-means favors non-extreme samples and no validation of tail preservation is given.
  • domain assumption Long-term contract prices and quantities are deterministic and risk-free, and there are no transmission constraints.
    Sections 2 and 2.1; these assumptions underlie the contract side of the objective and constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching the spot allocation percentage across models yields a meaningful comparison of CVaR and DRO.
    The author selects (alpha,epsilon) pairs that produce the same spot allocation to build Figures 5 and 7; this alignment, rather than an independent test, generates the 'same tradeoff curves' conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Driven Distributionally Robust Optimization for Long-Term Contract vs. Spot Allocation Decisions: Application to Electricity Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUSVYKQD

@misc{pith2026250115340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Driven Distributionally Robust Optimization for Long-Term Contract vs. Spot Allocation Decisions: Application to Electricity Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUSVYKQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15340}
}
read the original abstract

There are numerous industrial settings in which a decision maker must decide whether to enter into long-term contracts to guarantee price (and hence cash flow) stability or to participate in more volatile spot markets. In this paper, we investigate a data-driven distributionally robust optimization (DRO) approach aimed at balancing this tradeoff. Unlike traditional risk-neutral stochastic optimization models that assume the underlying probability distribution generating the data is known, DRO models assume the distribution belongs to a family of possible distributions, thus providing a degree of immunization against unseen and potential worst-case outcomes. We compare and contrast the performance of a risk-neutral model, conditional value-at-risk formulation, and a Wasserstein distributionally robust model to demonstrate the potential benefits of a DRO approach for an ``elasticity-aware'' price-taking decision maker.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The power portfolio optimization problem in relation to other prominent electricity planning and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of key ingredients in the power portfolio optimization problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Numerical example and explanation of the “reward-to-risk” metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of historical real-time hourly location marginal prices (LMP) at PJM node 48612 from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Profit vs risk tradeoff curves for Case Study 1. ∆Profit and ∆Risk are {the expected profit increase} and {the absolute value of the CVARγ decrease}, respectively, relative to the risk-free allocation of committing all supply to long-term contracts. The (α, ϵ) values s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top right: Scatter plots of locational marginal price correlations for 10 PJM market locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Profit vs risk tradeoff curves for Case Study 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean long-term wholesale allocation fraction for Case Study 2 with no spot price elasticity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Steady-state simulation and optimization of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant with CO 2 capture

    Debangsu Bhattacharyya, Richard Turton, and Stephen E Zitney. Steady-state simulation and optimization of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant with CO 2 capture. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50 0 (3): 0 1674--1690, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Mathematical programming formulations for the alternating current optimal power flow problem

    Dan Bienstock, Mauro Escobar, Claudio Gentile, and Leo Liberti. Mathematical programming formulations for the alternating current optimal power flow problem. 4OR, 18 0 (3): 0 249--292, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Optimal dynamic operation of a high-purity air separation plant under varying market conditions

    Yanan Cao, Christopher LE Swartz, and Jesus Flores-Cerrillo. Optimal dynamic operation of a high-purity air separation plant under varying market conditions. Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 55 0 (37): 0 9956--9970, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A robust learning approach for regression models based on distributionally robust optimization

    Ruidi Chen and Ioannis C Paschalidis. A robust learning approach for regression models based on distributionally robust optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 19 0 (13), 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Optimal involvement in futures markets of a power producer

    Antonio J Conejo, Raquel Garcia-Bertrand, Miguel Carrion, \'A ngel Caballero, and Antonio de Andres. Optimal involvement in futures markets of a power producer. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23 0 (2): 0 703--711, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems

    Erick Delage and Yinyu Ye. Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Operations research, 58 0 (3): 0 595--612, 2010

    2010

  7. [7]

    Economic opportunities for industrial systems from frequency regulation markets

    Alexander W Dowling and Victor M Zavala. Economic opportunities for industrial systems from frequency regulation markets. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 114: 0 254--264, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A multi-scale optimization framework for electricity market participation

    Alexander W Dowling, Ranjeet Kumar, and Victor M Zavala. A multi-scale optimization framework for electricity market participation. Applied Energy, 190: 0 147--164, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Elton, M.J

    E.J. Elton, M.J. Gruber, S.J. Brown, and W.N. Goetzmann. Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis. Wiley, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Impact of system constraints on pricing in ERCOT , May 2020

    ERCOT . Impact of system constraints on pricing in ERCOT , May 2020. URL https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2020/05/28/Pricing_in_ERCOT_FINAL.pdf

    2020

  3. [11]

    Contracting strategies for renewable generators: A hybrid stochastic and robust optimization approach

    Bruno Fanzeres, Alexandre Street, and Luiz Augusto Barroso. Contracting strategies for renewable generators: A hybrid stochastic and robust optimization approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 30 0 (4): 0 1825--1837, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Complementarity modeling in energy markets, volume 180

    Steven A Gabriel, Antonio J Conejo, J David Fuller, Benjamin F Hobbs, and Carlos Ruiz. Complementarity modeling in energy markets, volume 180. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Data-driven distributionally robust optimization of shale gas supply chains under uncertainty

    Jiyao Gao, Chao Ning, and Fengqi You. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization of shale gas supply chains under uncertainty. AIChE Journal, 65 0 (3): 0 947--963, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with W asserstein distance

    Rui Gao and Anton J Kleywegt. Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with W asserstein distance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02199, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Generation expansion planning with revenue adequacy constraints

    Cheng Guo, Merve Bodur, and Dimitri J Papageorgiou. Generation expansion planning with revenue adequacy constraints. Computers & Operations Research, 142: 0 105736, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Conic programming reformulations of two-stage distributionally robust linear programs over W asserstein balls

    Grani A Hanasusanto and Daniel Kuhn. Conic programming reformulations of two-stage distributionally robust linear programs over W asserstein balls. Operations Research, 66 0 (3): 0 849--869, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Forward contracts for the operation of an electricity industry under spot pricing

    RJ Kaye, HR Outhred, and CH Bannister. Forward contracts for the operation of an electricity industry under spot pricing. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 5 0 (1): 0 46--52, 1990

    1990

  10. [18]

    Strategic generation investment using a complementarity approach

    S Jalal Kazempour, Antonio J Conejo, and Carlos Ruiz. Strategic generation investment using a complementarity approach. IEEE transactions on power systems, 26 0 (2): 0 940--948, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Demand response operation of electricity-intensive chemical processes for reduced greenhouse gas emissions: application to an air separation unit

    Morgan T Kelley, Ross Baldick, and Michael Baldea. Demand response operation of electricity-intensive chemical processes for reduced greenhouse gas emissions: application to an air separation unit. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 7 0 (2): 0 1909--1922, 2018

    1909

  12. [20]

    Fundamentals of power system economics

    Daniel S Kirschen and Goran Strbac. Fundamentals of power system economics. John Wiley & Sons, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Active metric learning for supervised classification

    Krishnan Kumaran, Dimitri J Papageorgiou, Martin Takac, Laurens Lueg, and Nicolas V Sahinidis. Active metric learning for supervised classification. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 144: 0 107132, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Stochastic programming models for replication of electricity forward contracts for industry

    Roy H Kwon, J Scott Rogers, and Sheena Yau. Stochastic programming models for replication of electricity forward contracts for industry. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 53 0 (7): 0 713--726, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Deterministic electric power infrastructure planning: Mixed-integer programming model and nested decomposition algorithm

    Cristiana L Lara, Dharik S Mallapragada, Dimitri J Papageorgiou, Aranya Venkatesh, and Ignacio E Grossmann. Deterministic electric power infrastructure planning: Mixed-integer programming model and nested decomposition algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 271 0...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Multistage distributionally robust design of a renewable source processing network under uncertainty

    Botong Liu and Zhihong Yuan. Multistage distributionally robust design of a renewable source processing network under uncertainty. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 60 0 (21): 0 7883--7903, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Power portfolio optimization considering locational electricity prices and risk management

    \'A lvaro Lorca and Jos \'e Prina. Power portfolio optimization considering locational electricity prices and risk management. Electric Power Systems Research, 109: 0 80--89, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Luenberger

    D.G. Luenberger. Investment Science. Oxford University Press, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Generalized robust counterparts for constraints with bounded and unbounded uncertain parameters

    Logan R Matthews, Yannis A Guzman, and Christodoulos A Floudas. Generalized robust counterparts for constraints with bounded and unbounded uncertain parameters. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 116: 0 451--467, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Electricity markets around the world

    Klaus Mayer and Stefan Tr \"u ck. Electricity markets around the world. Journal of Commodity Markets, 9: 0 77--100, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Optimal scheduling of industrial combined heat and power plants under time-sensitive electricity prices

    Sumit Mitra, Lige Sun, and Ignacio E Grossmann. Optimal scheduling of industrial combined heat and power plants under time-sensitive electricity prices. Energy, 54: 0 194--211, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the W asserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations

    Peyman Mohajerin Esfahani and Daniel Kuhn. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the W asserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Mathematical Programming, 171 0 (1): 0 115--166, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Risk-averse two-stage stochastic programming with an application to disaster management

    Nilay Noyan. Risk-averse two-stage stochastic programming with an application to disaster management. Computers & Operations Research, 39 0 (3): 0 541--559, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Exploring the benefits of modular renewable-powered ammonia production: A supply chain optimization study

    Matthew J Palys, Andrew Allman, and Prodromos Daoutidis. Exploring the benefits of modular renewable-powered ammonia production: A supply chain optimization study. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 58 0 (15): 0 5898--5908, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Optimal process operations in fast-changing electricity markets: framework for scheduling with low-order dynamic models and an air separation application

    Richard C Pattison, Cara R Touretzky, Ted Johansson, Iiro Harjunkoski, and Michael Baldea. Optimal process operations in fast-changing electricity markets: framework for scheduling with low-order dynamic models and an air separation application. Industrial & Engineering Chemis...

    2016

  26. [34]

    Managing the financial risks of electricity producers using options

    Salvador Pineda and Antonio J Conejo. Managing the financial risks of electricity producers using options. Energy economics, 34 0 (6): 0 2216--2227, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Distributionally robust optimization: A review

    Hamed Rahimian and Sanjay Mehrotra. Distributionally robust optimization: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05659, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  28. [36]

    EPEC s as models for electricity markets

    Daniel Ralph and Yves Smeers. EPEC s as models for electricity markets. In 2006 IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, pages 74--80, 2006

    2006

  29. [37]

    On W asserstein two-sample testing and related families of nonparametric tests

    Aaditya Ramdas, Nicol \'a s Garc \' a Trillos, and Marco Cuturi. On W asserstein two-sample testing and related families of nonparametric tests. Entropy, 19 0 (2): 0 47, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    A mixed-integer linear programming model for real-time cost optimization of building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment

    Michael J Risbeck, Christos T Maravelias, James B Rawlings, and Robert D Turney. A mixed-integer linear programming model for real-time cost optimization of building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. Energy and Buildings, 142: 0 220--235, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Coherent approaches to risk in optimization under uncertainty

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar. Coherent approaches to risk in optimization under uncertainty. Tutorials in Operations Research, 3: 0 38--61, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    A stochastic programming approach to power portfolio optimization

    Suvrajeet Sen, Lihua Yu, and Talat Genc. A stochastic programming approach to power portfolio optimization. Operations Research, 54 0 (1): 0 55--72, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Restructured electrical power systems: Operation, trading, and volatility, volume 1

    Mohammad Shahidehpour and Muwaffaq Alomoush. Restructured electrical power systems: Operation, trading, and volatility, volume 1. CRC Press, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Distributionally robust optimization for planning and scheduling under uncertainty

    Chao Shang and Fengqi You. Distributionally robust optimization for planning and scheduling under uncertainty. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 110: 0 53--68, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Space-time dynamics of electricity markets incentivize technology decentralization

    Yue Shao and Victor M Zavala. Space-time dynamics of electricity markets incentivize technology decentralization. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 127: 0 31--40, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Bidding strategy under uncertainty for risk-averse generator companies in a long-term forward contract auction

    Alexandre Street, Luiz Augusto Barroso, Sergio Granville, and Mario Veiga Pereira. Bidding strategy under uncertainty for risk-averse generator companies in a long-term forward contract auction. In 2009 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, pages 1--8. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    Likelihood robust optimization for data-driven problems

    Zizhuo Wang, Peter W Glynn, and Yinyu Ye. Likelihood robust optimization for data-driven problems. Computational Management Science, 13 0 (2): 0 241--261, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Learning to solve large-scale security-constrained unit commitment problems

    \'A linson S Xavier, Feng Qiu, and Shabbir Ahmed. Learning to solve large-scale security-constrained unit commitment problems. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 33 0 (2): 0 739--756, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Tractable reformulations of two-stage distributionally robust linear programs over the type- W asserstein ball

    Weijun Xie. Tractable reformulations of two-stage distributionally robust linear programs over the type- W asserstein ball. Operations Research Letters, 48 0 (4): 0 513--523, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Financial and operational decisions in the electricity sector: Contract portfolio optimization with the conditional value-at-risk criterion

    Sheena Yau, Roy H Kwon, J Scott Rogers, and Desheng Wu. Financial and operational decisions in the electricity sector: Contract portfolio optimization with the conditional value-at-risk criterion. International Journal of Production Economics, 134 0 (1): 0 67--77, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Real-time optimization strategies for building systems

    Victor M Zavala. Real-time optimization strategies for building systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 52 0 (9): 0 3137--3150, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Enterprise-wide optimization for industrial demand side management: Fundamentals, advances, and perspectives

    Qi Zhang and Ignacio E Grossmann. Enterprise-wide optimization for industrial demand side management: Fundamentals, advances, and perspectives. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 116: 0 114--131, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

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