Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Solving Optimal Power Flow on a Data-Budget: Feature Selection on Smart Meter Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a grid operator can nearly reproduce optimal DER schedules using only K well-chosen smart-meter readings, with 16 of 50 features on a small feeder and 116 of 1,038 on a large one.

desk verdict Good idea, sound derivations, but the empirical claims are in-sample only; the paper needs a held-out test set and a specified BGL2 solver before the budget claims can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06683 v2 pith:6EZCG6PD submitted 2025-02-10 eess.SY cs.SY

Vassilis Kekatos , Ridley Annin , Manish K. Singh , Junjie Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords optimalpowerflowsmartmeterdatafeatureselectiondistillationgrouplassobileveloptimizationDERschedulingproximalgradient
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

The paper asks how many real-time load measurements a distribution grid operator truly needs to schedule distributed energy resources, and answers that a small, carefully chosen subset can be enough. The proposal is a two-step data distillation pipeline: pick $K$ out of $P$ load-demand features to read from meters, then reconstruct the full demand vector with a linear map $W$ and feed it into the existing OPF solver. The authors' stronger contribution is a bilevel formulation that trains $W$ to minimize error in the final DER schedule, not in the reconstructed data, using a group-lasso sparsity penalty and proximal-gradient optimization. On two single-phase feeders, the two-stage bilevel method (BGL2) gives schedule errors of a few percent at $K=16$ of $P=50$ on the small feeder and within 5% at $K=116$ of $P=1{,}038$ on the large one, with voltage distributions nearly matching the full-data OPF. If this holds, operators can cut uplink communication and sensor installation without changing their OPF solver.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the distillation matrix $W = CS^\top$, a $P \times K$ selection matrix $S$ (one hot entry per chosen feature) followed by a $P \times K$ reconstruction matrix $C$; $W$ is column-sparse so that only $K$ OPF features are needed in real time. For the Type-2 objective, $W$ is found by minimizing the OPF-solution fitting error $f_2(W)$ plus a group-lasso penalty $\lambda_2 \sum_p \|w_p\|$, which forces whole columns of $W$ to zero and thereby selects features. The gradient of $f_2$ with respect to $W$ is carried by the Jacobian $\nabla_{\hat\theta} x$ of the OPF solution with respect to its data, so each proximal-gradient iteration solves a batch of $T$ OPFs and one linear system per instance; the two-stage BGL2 then discards the biased lasso reconstruction and least-squares fits $C$ on the chosen support.

What would settle it

Train $W$ on one set of loading scenarios and evaluate $f_2$ on a held-out set from the same feeders; if the held-out normalized OPF-solution error is much larger than the in-sample curves of Fig. 3 and Table I, then the claimed $K=16$ and $K=116$ data budgets do not transfer to unseen conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the OPF mapping $\theta \mapsto x(\theta)$ is compressible: a linear reconstruction matrix $W = CS^\top$, trained on historical scenarios, can map $K$ selected entries of the OPF data vector back to a full $P$-dimensional vector whose OPF minimizer $x(W\theta)$ stays close to $x(\theta)$. The paper argues that aiming directly at solution fidelity, rather than data fidelity, is what makes small data budgets work. It formalizes this as the bilevel group-lasso program of (27), where the outer level minimizes $f_2(W)=\frac{1}{2T}\sum_t \|x(\theta_t)-x(W\theta_t)\|^2$ over a column-sparse $W$ and each inner level solves the OPF at the reconstructed data; the two-stage variant BGL2 first uses BGL to pick the $K$ features and then refits the reconstruction matrix by least squares, which the numerical tests show to be the most accurate scheme. The reported experiments on the 37-bus and 1,136-bus single-phase feeders are the evidence offered for the claim.

Load-bearing premise

The whole budget reduction rests on the assumption that the reconstruction matrix trained on historical load scenarios will also work on future load conditions the operator has not seen, since the paper's error numbers are computed on the same scenarios used for training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A distribution operator can keep its existing OPF solver untouched and operate on only $K$ meter feeds, so real-time uplink communication falls by the ratio $1-K/P$ with no change to dispatch software.
  • At larger budgets $K/P$, simple Type-1 schemes such as GL2 match the bilevel method, so operators can choose the cheaper convex training when they can afford more measurements.
  • The selected features reveal which loads and which active/reactive pairs are most influential, which can guide meter placement and cyber-protection priorities.
  • Voltage feasibility is preserved: BGL2 schedules keep nodal voltages close to the full-data OPF distribution under both linearized and exact AC models.
  • Because the framework only needs gradients through the OPF mapping, the same distillation idea transfers to AC OPF, multi-phase feeders, and other OPF variants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported errors are in-sample, so the practical data budget is not fully established until the reconstruction matrix is tested on held-out scenarios; a distribution shift in loads could require more than $K$ measurements.
  • If the selected-feature pattern is stable across seasons, the same selection matrix could double as a minimal meter-placement plan, but the paper does not test cross-season stability.
  • The per-iteration cost of solving $T$ OPFs and Jacobians is the main scalability bottleneck, so a stochastic proximal variant that samples one OPF per iteration, listed as future work in the paper, would be the natural next step for larger feeders.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an OPF data distillation framework for distribution systems where the DSO selects K out of P load/solar data features, reconstructs the full data vector linearly as θ̂ = Wθ, and feeds the reconstruction into a fixed OPF solver. Two families of methods are developed: Type-1 methods (PCA, DEIM, group lasso, and a two-stage group lasso GL2) that minimize the data reconstruction error f1(W), and Type-2 methods (bilevel group lasso BGL and its two-stage variant BGL2) that minimize the OPF-solution error f2(W). The bilevel problem is solved by a proximal gradient algorithm with convergence guarantees for nonconvex objectives. Numerical tests on single-phase versions of the IEEE 37-bus and a 1,136-bus feeder report that BGL2 approximates optimal DER schedules within a few percent error using K=16 or K=116 features, respectively, and that the resulting voltage distributions are close to those of the full OPF.

Significance. If the reported performance holds out of sample, the paper makes a useful contribution to data-frugal and communication-limited DER scheduling: it directly addresses the practical problem of how many smart-meter data streams a DSO must collect to solve OPF approximately. The optimization derivations in Sections III and IV are internally consistent, and the gradient formulas and lemmas in the appendix are proved correctly, with the exception of an omitted proof detail. The problem is timely and the proposed framework is clearly relevant to distribution system operation. However, the central numerical claims are supported only by in-sample evaluation, and the two-stage BGL2 method that produces the headline results is under-specified, so the significance is conditional on a revision that adds out-of-sample validation and a complete algorithmic description.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V and Conclusions] The headline claims that "optimal DER schedules can be approximated reasonably well" with K=16 (Conclusions, 37-bus case) and "within 5% error using K=116" (Conclusions, 1,136-bus case) are based entirely on in-sample evaluation. The fidelity metrics f1(W) and f2(W) in Eqs. (12) and (26) are computed on the same training scenarios Θ in Eq. (8) that were used to fit W; in particular, for BGL2 the reconstruction matrix C is fitted by minimizing f2 over the same T scenarios in Eq. (29). Figures 2, 3, and Table I, as well as the "Sample size effect" paragraph in Section V-A, all report errors on the training set with no held-out test set, temporal validation, or cross-validation. Because the DSO would deploy W on future, unseen loading conditions, the data-budget savings claims are not established by the evidence presented. The authors should report out-of-sample errors (e.g., via a random or temporal train/test split, repeated over multiple splits to give confidence intervals) and state whether the K=16 and K=116 conclusions survive on held-out data.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (29)] The two-stage BGL2 method, which achieves the best reported fidelity in Figures 3 and 7 and Table I, is defined as the minimizer of the bilevel program in Eq. (29) over the reconstruction matrix C, but no solution algorithm is provided for this problem. Algorithm 2 solves the one-stage BGL problem in Eq. (27) with the sparsity penalty g(W); it does not solve the continuous bilevel least-squares problem in Eq. (29) that defines BGL2. As written, an independent reader cannot reproduce the BGL2 results or know whether the reported errors correspond to a global, local, or merely stationary solution of (29). The paper must specify how (29) is optimized (e.g., a projected/proximal gradient method on the selected support, using the Jacobian from Lemma 2, with initialization, step sizes, and stopping criteria) and state any convergence guarantees, or explicitly state that the same APG scheme is applied to C with the support fixed.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (5)] The OPF in Eq. (5) depends on the soft-constraint penalty weights (ν, ρ), and the paper states that analytical bounds and heuristics for selecting them are given in [26]. However, the numerical values of ν and ρ used in all reported tests are not stated anywhere in Section V or the appendix. Since both the OPF minimizers x(θ) and the fidelity metric f2(W) depend directly on these parameters, the reported error percentages and voltage distributions are not reproducible without this information. The authors should report the exact values of ν and ρ used, and ideally show sensitivity of the headline results to these choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (18)] The notation in Eq. (18) is garbled: the replacement of the two separate column norms by the norm of the concatenated vector is not typeset correctly, making the intended grouped penalty difficult to parse.
  2. [Appendix, proof of Lemma 3] The proof of Lemma 3 is incomplete as written; it says "The rest of the proof follows the proof of Lemma 1 and is omitted," which is acceptable for a short lemma, but the step connecting the critical-point condition to the bound on λ2 should be spelled out, especially because λ2 depends on x(0) and the Jacobian ∇θx(0).
  3. [Section V-B, Figures 5 and 8] The exact AC model used to compute the voltage distributions in Figures 5 and 8 is not described; the paper should specify the AC power flow solver, the network model (e.g., unbalanced vs. single-phase equivalent), and any convergence tolerances.
  4. [Section I, contribution iii] There is a typo in the third contribution: "reconstucted" should be "reconstructed".

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central budget claims are in-sample fit errors: BGL2 is trained to minimize the same f2 objective that Figs. 3, Table I, and the Conclusions report, with no held-out evaluation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (29); Section V-B, Table I; Section VI, Conclusions]
    "CBGL2 = arg min C 1/(2T) Σ_t ∥x_t − Rhat{x}_t(CS⊤_BGL)∥2. ... The first test for the 1,136-bus network compares GL/GL2 and BGL/BGL2 in terms of reconstructing the OPF minimizers X. Table I shows the normalized squared errors for 5 values of K. ... DER schedules can be approximated within 5% error using K = 116 out of P = 1,038 features."

    The reconstruction matrix C in Eq. (29) is fitted by minimizing f2(W) = (1/2T)Σ_t ∥x_t − Rhat{x}_t(W)∥2 over the T training scenarios. Table I and Fig. 3 then report normalized f2(W)/∥X∥²_F for BGL2 on the same T scenarios. Thus the headline numbers—e.g., about 1% for K = 31 on the 37-bus feeder and 4.91% for K = 116 on the 1,136-bus feeder—are the in-sample values of the objective used to fit BGL2. They are not errors on unseen loading conditions. The Conclusion's data-budget claim treats this fitted objective value as evidence that DER schedules can be approximated with K = 116 features, but the reported quantity is the training objective by construction, not an out-of-sample prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V-A, 'Sample size effect']
    "Fifty (50) scenarios were randomly sampled from the T = 800 scenarios that were used in previous tests. ... The minimizer errors for all Type-1 and Type-2 methods are lower when the number of OPF scenarios is smaller."

    This experiment retrains the distillation matrices on the 50 sampled scenarios and reports the minimizer errors on those same 50 scenarios. With in-sample evaluation, smaller training sets can fit their own scenarios more easily, so lower error with fewer scenarios is the expected artifact of measuring training fit rather than generalization. The paragraph therefore does not establish a sample-size conclusion for deployment; it only shows that the fitted objectives are smaller when fewer points are fit. An out-of-sample evaluation would be required to support any claim about how the number of training scenarios affects future reconstruction error.

full rationale

The algorithmic construction itself is not circular: BGL2 is a well-defined bilevel optimization that minimizes an OPF-output fidelity objective, and the gradient formula in Lemma 2 is derived in the appendix rather than imported as an unverified premise. The circularity is concentrated in the evaluation semantics. The paper fits BGL2 by minimizing f2 over the training scenarios and then reports f2 on those same scenarios as the achieved approximation error; the 5% and 1% figures are therefore the optimized training objective, not evidence about unseen data. The sample-size paragraph repeats the same in-sample pattern, reporting lower errors on the same 50 scenarios used for fitting. No held-out time period, random split, or cross-validation is described, so the central data-budget claim is not yet established for future deployment. Self-citations, such as Remark 3 referencing prior work for Jacobian computation, are not load-bearing here because the needed sensitivity formula is proved in the appendix and is a standard calculation. Overall, the paper's contribution remains methodologically meaningful, but the headline numerical claims reduce to in-sample fit errors, giving a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the soft-constrained linearized OPF model, the computability of OPF Jacobians, the representativeness of the training data, and the sufficiency of linear reconstruction. The paper's evaluation does not test the training-data generalization assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda1 (Type-1 group lasso regularization) = not reported; tuned via bisection so W_GL has exactly K nonzero columns
    Controls sparsity/selection of OPF features in Section III-C; the paper does not report the values used in the numerical tests.
  • lambda2 (Type-2 BGL regularization) = not reported; tuned via bisection so W_BGL has exactly K nonzero columns
    Controls sparsity in the bilevel program (27); exact values omitted from the numerical section.
  • nu, rho (soft constraint weights in OPF (5)) = not reported; chosen 'sufficiently large' per [26]
    Determines the OPF mapping x(theta) and hence all Type-2 design; values are not given, yet they influence the numerical results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linearized distribution flow model (2)-(3) accurately represents grid voltages and losses for the data distillation task.
    Section II adopts the flat-voltage linearization; the method is only tested on this model, and AC feasibility is checked but the OPF solver itself is linearized.
  • domain assumption The OPF minimizer Jacobian (gradient of x with respect to theta) exists and can be computed from optimal primal/dual solutions.
    Required for Lemma 2 and Algorithm 2; supported by references [1], [2], [26], whose details are not reproduced here.
  • domain assumption The historical training set theta is representative of real-time loading conditions, and in-sample fidelity predicts out-of-sample fidelity.
    Implicit in Section V, where no train/test split is used; this is the weakest assumption of the evaluation.
  • domain assumption Linear reconstruction (hat theta = W theta) is expressive enough to capture the mapping from selected data to full OPF data.
    The paper restricts to linear schemes in Eq. (7) and leaves nonlinear reconstruction to future work; the central claim depends on this restriction being sufficient.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving Optimal Power Flow on a Data-Budget: Feature Selection on Smart Meter Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EZCG6PD

@misc{pith2026250206683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving Optimal Power Flow on a Data-Budget: Feature Selection on Smart Meter Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EZCG6PD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06683}
}
read the original abstract

How much data is needed to optimally schedule distributed energy resources (DERs)? Does the distribution system operator (DSO) have to know load demands at each bus of the feeder to solve an optimal power flow (OPF)? This work exploits redundancies in OPF's structure and data to minimize the communication of such a data deluge, and explores the trade-off between data compression and the grid's performance. We propose an OPF data distillation framework involving two steps: The DSO first collects OPF data from only a subset of nodes. It subsequently reconstructs the complete OPF data from the partial ones, and feeds them into the OPF solver. Selecting and reconstructing OPF data may be performed to maximize the fidelity of the reconstructed data or the associated OPF solutions. Under the first objective, OPF data distillation is posed as a sparsity-regularized convex problem. Under the second objective, it is posed as a sparsity-regularized bilevel program. Both problems are solved using proximal gradient algorithms. The second objective is superior in approximating OPF solutions at the expense of increased complexity. Numerical tests show that it enhances the fidelity and feasibility of the reconstructed OPF solutions, which can be approximated reasonably well even from partial data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) OPF mapping: The OPF as a parametric optimization problem. The OPF maps input data θ ∈ RP to minimizers x ∈ RN . (b) OPF data distillation: The operator first selects K out of P data to form θ˜ ∈ RK. The entries of θ˜ are communicated from each selected bus to the operator over a communication network. The operator uses θ˜ to reconstruct an OPF parameter vector θˆ of length P, equal to the original parameter vec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized data reconstruction error f1(W)/∥Θ∥ 2 F = ∥Θ − Θˆ ∥ 2 F /∥Θ∥ 2 F obtained by OPF data distillation methods for increasing numbers of OPF features for the single-phase 37-bus system. an M3 Pro chip and 36 GB of RAM. Type-1 methods took less than a few minutes to run. Type-2 methods took from seconds to a few minutes to run for smaller K, and a few hours for larger K. A. Numerical Tests on the 37-bus Feeder… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Violin plots of voltage magnitudes computed using the exact AC grid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: OPF features selected by BGL for K = 7 and K = 16. TABLE I FIDELITY IN OPF SOLUTIONS FOR THE IEEE 1,136-BUS SYSTEM K out of P = 1, 038 Normalized error in OPF solutions [%] PCA GL GL2 BGL BGL2 2 99.29 99.99 99.65 88.55 40.22 5 98.29 99.99 99.11 53.54 36.30 21 93.28 99.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Violin plots of voltage magnitudes computed using the exact AC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Fast probabilistic hosting capacity analysis for active distribution systems,

    S. Taheri, M. Jalali, V . Kekatos, and L. Tong, “Fast probabilistic hosting capacity analysis for active distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, no. 3, pp. 2000–2012, May 2021

    work page 2000

  2. [1]

    Learning to solve the AC-OPF using sensitivity-informed deep neural networks,

    M. K. Singh, V . Kekatos, and G. B. Giannakis, “Learning to solve the AC-OPF using sensitivity-informed deep neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2833–2846, Jul. 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Fast inverter control by learning the OPF mapping using sensitivity- informed Gaussian processes,

    M. Jalali, M. K. Singh, V . Kekatos, G. B. Giannakis, and C. C. Liu, “Fast inverter control by learning the OPF mapping using sensitivity- informed Gaussian processes,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 2432–2445, May 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Uncertainty quan- tification for optimal power flow problems,

    T. M ¨uhlpfordt, V . Hagenmeyer, and T. Faulwasser, “Uncertainty quan- tification for optimal power flow problems,” Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics , vol. 19, no. 1, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    A. J. Conejo, E. Castillo, R. Minguez, and R. Garcia-Bertrand, Decom- position techniques in mathematical programming . Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

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

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

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Data valuation from data- driven optimization,

    R. Mieth, J. M. Morales, and H. V . Poor, “Data valuation from data- driven optimization,” IEEE Trans. Control of Network Systems, pp. 1–12, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Differentially private optimal power flow for distribution grids,

    V . Dvorkin, F. Fioretto, P. Van Hentenryck, P. Pinson, and J. Kazempour, “Differentially private optimal power flow for distribution grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2186–2196, May 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Smart meter data privacy,

    G. Giaconi, D. Gunduz, and H. V . Poor, “Smart meter data privacy,” in Advanced Data Analytics for Power Systems , A. Tajer, S. M. Perlaza, and H. V . Poor, Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, May 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Privacy-preserving data aggregation in smart metering systems: An overview,

    Z. Erkin, J. R. Troncoso-Pastoriza, R. Lagendijk, and F. Perez-Gonzalez, “Privacy-preserving data aggregation in smart metering systems: An overview,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 75–86, Mar. 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    A privacy-preserving distributed control of optimal power flow,

    M. Ryu and K. Kim, “A privacy-preserving distributed control of optimal power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 2042–2051, May 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Towards optimal Kron-based reduction of networks (Opti-KRON) for the electric power grid,

    S. Chevalier and M. R. Almassalkhi, “Towards optimal Kron-based reduction of networks (Opti-KRON) for the electric power grid,” inProc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control , 2022, pp. 5713–5718

    2022

  5. [12]

    Reduced-order model for inter-inverter oscillations in islanded droop- controlled microgrids,

    I. P. Nikolakakos, H. H. Zeineldin, M. S. El-Moursi, and J. L. Kirtley, “Reduced-order model for inter-inverter oscillations in islanded droop- controlled microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4953– 4963, 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    Line limit preserving power system equivalent,

    W. Jang, S. Mohapatra, T. J. Overbye, and H. Zhu, “Line limit preserving power system equivalent,” in 2013 IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI) , 2013, pp. 206–212

    2013

  7. [14]

    Load encoding for learning AC-OPF,

    T. W. Mak, F. Fioretto, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Load encoding for learning AC-OPF,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03973 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Compact optimization learning for AC optimal power flow,

    S. Park, W. Chen, T. W. Mak, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Compact optimization learning for AC optimal power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4350–4359, Mar. 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Controlling smart inverters using proxies: A chance-constrained DNN-based approach,

    S. Gupta, V . Kekatos, and M. Jin, “Controlling smart inverters using proxies: A chance-constrained DNN-based approach,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1310–1321, Mar. 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Deep learning for reactive power control of smart inverters under communication constraints,

    ——, “Deep learning for reactive power control of smart inverters under communication constraints,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Smart Grid Commun., Tempe, AZ, Nov. 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  11. [18]

    Learning joint models of prediction and optimization,

    J. Kotary, V . D. Vito, J. Cristopher, P. V . Hentenryck, and F. Fioretto, “Learning joint models of prediction and optimization,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04898

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables,

    M. Yuan and Y . Lin, “Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 49–67, 2007

    2007

  13. [20]

    Power distribution system observability with smart meter data,

    S. Bhela, V . Kekatos, and S. Veeramachaneni, “Power distribution system observability with smart meter data,” in Proc. IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and Inf. Process. , Montreal, Canada, Nov. 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Sparsity- promoting optimal wide-area control of power networks,

    F. Dorfler, M. R. Jovanovic, M. Chertkov, and F. Bullo, “Sparsity- promoting optimal wide-area control of power networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2281–2291, Sep. 2014

    2014

  15. [22]

    An MILP approach for distribu- tion grid topology identification using inverter probing,

    S. Taheri, V . Kekatos, and G. Cavraro, “An MILP approach for distribu- tion grid topology identification using inverter probing,” in Proc. IEEE PowerTech, Milan, Italy, Jun. 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  16. [23]

    A data-driven sensor place- ment approach for detecting voltage violations in distribution systems,

    P. Buason, S. Misra, and D. K. Molzahn, “A data-driven sensor place- ment approach for detecting voltage violations in distribution systems,” 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    Forecast- aided state estimation in unbalanced distribution networks using smart meter data under limited communication bandwidth,

    A. Rangarajan, R. Gupta, D. K. Molzahn, and L. A. Roald, “Forecast- aided state estimation in unbalanced distribution networks using smart meter data under limited communication bandwidth,” to appear in Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks for presentation at the 12th IREP B...

    2025

  18. [25]

    Scheduling distributed energy resources under limited observability of distribution grids,

    V . Kekatos, R. Annin, M. K. Singh, and J. Qin, “Scheduling distributed energy resources under limited observability of distribution grids,” in Bulk Power System Dynamics and Control Symposium (IREP), Sorrento, Italy, Jun. 2025, (submited December 2024). [Online]. Available: h...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Joint grid topology reconfiguration and design of Watt-V AR curves for DERs,

    M. K. Singh, S. Taheri, V . Kekatos, K. P. Schneider, and C.-C. Liu, “Joint grid topology reconfiguration and design of Watt-V AR curves for DERs,” in Proc. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting , Denver, CO, Jul. 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    An empirical interpolation method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretization of partial differential equations,

    M. Barrault, Y . Maday, N. C. Nguyen, and A. T. Patera, “An empirical interpolation method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretization of partial differential equations,” Comptes Rendus Mathematique , vol. 339, no. 9, pp. 667–672, 2004, publisher: Elsevier

    2004

  21. [29]

    Solving structured sparsity regularization with proximal methods,

    S. Mosci, L. Rosasco, M. Santoro, A. Verri, and S. Villa, “Solving structured sparsity regularization with proximal methods,” in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010, pp. 418–433

    2010

  22. [30]

    Accelerated proximal gradient methods for nonconvex programming,

    H. Li and Z. Lin, “Accelerated proximal gradient methods for nonconvex programming,” in Intl. Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 1. Montreal, Canada: MIT Press, 2015, pp. 379—-387

    2015

  23. [31]

    Solution of bilevel optimization problems using the KKT approach,

    S. Dempe and S. Franke, “Solution of bilevel optimization problems using the KKT approach,” Optimization, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 1471–1489, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Learning to optimize power distribution grids using sensitivity- informed deep neural networks,

    M. K. Singh, S. Gupta, V . Kekatos, G. Cavraro, and A. Bern- stein, “Learning to optimize power distribution grids using sensitivity- informed deep neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Smart Grid Commun., Tempe, AZ, Nov. 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  25. [33]

    A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,

    J. Lofberg, “A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,” in Proc. of the CACSD Conf. , 2004. [Online]. Available: http: //users.isy.liu.se/johanl/yalmip/

    2004

  26. [34]

    Using SeDuMi 1.02, a Matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones,

    J. F. Sturm, “Using SeDuMi 1.02, a Matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones,” Optimization Methods Software, vol. 11–12, pp. 625–653, Aug. 1999. [Online]. Available: http://sedumi.ie.lehigh.edu

    1999

  27. [35]

    Dataport

    (2018) Pecan Street Inc. Dataport. [Online]. Available: https: //dataport.cloud/

    2018

  28. [36]

    Impact of uncoordinated plug-in electric vehicle charging on residential power demand - supplementary data,

    M. Muratori, “Impact of uncoordinated plug-in electric vehicle charging on residential power demand - supplementary data,” Golden, CO, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Smart*: An open data set and tools for enabling research in sustainable homes,

    S. Barker, A. Mishra, D. Irwin, E. Cecchet, P. Shenoy, and J. Albrecht, “Smart*: An open data set and tools for enabling research in sustainable homes,” in Proc. Workshop on Data Mining Applications in Sustainabil- ity, Beijing, China, Aug. 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.