Robust Distribution Network Reconfiguration Using Mapping-based Column-and-Constraint Generation

Changhong Zhao; Kaiping Qu; Runjie Zhang; Wanjun Huang

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Robust Distribution Network Reconfiguration Using Mapping-based Column-and-Constraint Generation

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a mapping-based column-and-constraint generation algorithm solves two-stage robust distribution network reconfiguration with renewable resizing to optimality in finitely many iterations.

desk verdict Smart modeling and a clever algorithm for a real problem, but the advertised finite-step convergence guarantee is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24677 v1 pith:R3LCR3TQ submitted 2025-05-30 eess.SY cs.SY

Runjie Zhang , Kaiping Qu , Changhong Zhao , Wanjun Huang This is my paper

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords distributionnetworkreconfigurationdecision-dependentuncertaintytwo-stagerobustoptimizationrenewablegeneratorresizingcolumn-and-constraintgenerationsecond-orderconeprogrammingsensitivityanalysis

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 tries to show that a distribution network's switching topology and renewable-generator output limits can be co-optimized under worst-case renewable uncertainty, even though the uncertainty set itself shifts with the chosen limits. It models the problem as a two-stage robust optimization with decision-dependent uncertainty, where the first stage decides both the network topology and the upper bounds of renewable outputs. The proposed mapping-based C&CG algorithm returns a KKT-derived mapping from the resizing decision to the worst-case uncertainty realization, rather than a fixed scenario, which the authors argue restores finite-step convergence. Case studies on IEEE test networks show convergence in three to four iterations and lower computation time than a modified Benders dual-decomposition benchmark.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the KKT-based mapping K(ξ, λ∗_t) defined in equation (20): stationarity, primal and dual feasibility, and complementary slackness for the linear program that selects the worst-case scenario w∗ given an optimal dual solution λ∗_t. This mapping explicitly tracks which constraints of W(ξ) = {F w ≤ f, w ≤ ξ} are active, including the decision-dependent bound w ≤ ξ, so the worst-case scenario returned to the master problem adapts as ξ changes. It is what turns the DDU problem into a finite enumeration of extreme-point mappings, restoring the convergence guarantee that fixed-scenario C&CG loses when the uncertainty set moves with the first-stage decision.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on an instance with small deviation budgets Γ_t and Γ_i, inspect the returned optimal ξ, and test whether it satisfies the equivalence conditions (16a)-(16c). A single violation, or a difference between the optimal value computed with the polyhedral set and the value computed with the original min-based set (9) at the same ξ, would show that the solved model is not the stated model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that robust distribution network reconfiguration with renewable generator resizing, despite its nonlinear second-order-cone recourse and decision-dependent uncertainty, can be solved to optimality in finitely many iterations by the mapping-based C&CG algorithm. Because the second-stage value function is convex in the uncertainty variable, its maximizer always lies at an extreme point of the decision-dependent uncertainty set; the algorithm generates a mapping K(ξ, λ∗_t) from the first-stage resizing decision ξ to an extreme point w∗ of the polyhedral set W(ξ), and returns that mapping, along with columns and constraints, to the master problem. Once the master problem carries these mappings for all relevant extreme points, it becomes equivalent to the original RDNR problem, giving finite convergence when the uncertainty set is a polyhedron or a finite set. The authors further show that a relaxed subproblem with a penalty on active-power imbalance avoids separate feasibility cuts, and they provide sensitivity results relating uncertainty-set parameters to the optimal value via dual variables.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any resizing decision the model can legally choose still satisfies the lower-bound and budget conditions that make the resized uncertainty set equal to the simplified polyhedron; if an optimal decision violates those conditions, the algorithm solves a different problem than the one stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, day-ahead distribution network reconfiguration with renewable resizing can be solved exactly by commercial solvers in a handful of iterations, making simultaneous topology and output-limit decisions practical.
The finite convergence guarantee covers polyhedral and finite uncertainty sets, so the algorithm is not tied to the specific box-plus-budget set; the added decision-dependent constraint (32) only modifies the KKT system.
The relaxed subproblem with a large penalty on active-power imbalance gives the same optimum for robustly feasible decisions, eliminating separate feasibility cuts and cutting solve time, e.g. 3.94 s versus 8.59 s on the 33-bus network.
The sensitivity analysis via dual variables lets an operator quantify the marginal cost impact of widening or shrinking renewable output ranges, as summarized by the positive sensitivities in Table III.
The comparison with modified Benders dual decomposition indicates that the mapping-based algorithm avoids the asymptotic convergence and growing per-iteration cost caused by SOCP recourse in the dual problem.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same KKT-mapping device should transfer to other two-stage robust problems where the uncertainty set is a polyhedron depending linearly on first-stage decisions, as long as the worst case remains at an extreme point.
The sensitivity values from equation (30) could be used as prices for forecast accuracy: an operator could compare the marginal value of shrinking an uncertainty range against the cost of better prediction, a step the paper outlines but does not fully develop.
The reported iteration counts stay nearly constant across network size but grow with the number of time periods, suggesting the bottleneck is the number of uncertainty variables rather than network complexity; time-period decomposition might further improve scalability.
A direct stress test is to check whether the optimal ξ returned on tight-budget instances satisfies the Remark 1 conditions; if not, the model actually solved differs from the original min-based uncertainty set, and the convergence guarantee would need restating.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This one is a mixed bag. The problem formulation is timely and the mapping-based C&CG idea is genuinely creative, but the paper's main advertised result—finite-step convergence—is not proven. You should read this as a promising working paper, not a finished theoretical contribution.

What is new and good: co-optimizing network topology and RG resizing as a two-stage robust problem with decision-dependent uncertainty is a natural extension, and the authors handle the DDU challenge by returning a KKT-based mapping K(ξ,λ*) rather than a fixed worst-case scenario. That is a real idea, distinct from [12], [17], [20], [21]. The case studies on 13, 33, and 123-bus systems are clean, and the algorithm does converge in a few iterations and beats modified Benders on time. The sensitivity discussion, while informal, gives practitioners useful intuition.

Where it falls short: Section III.B.4 asserts that Algorithm 1 converges in finitely many steps for polyhedral uncertainty sets, but the argument does not survive close reading. The set of extreme points of W(ξ) = {Fw ≤ f, w ≤ ξ} is infinite as ξ varies continuously; the finite-extreme-point intuition that works for a fixed polyhedron does not transfer. The cuts added to the master use dual vectors λ* from previous iterates, and nothing shows that finitely many such λ* can represent the true worst-case for new ξ. Moreover, the dual feasible set in (25) is a second-order cone, not a polyhedron, so the standard C&CG argument breaks down. The master problem (24) includes complementarity constraints from K(ξ,λ*) but does not describe how they are linearized or solved; that is an underspecified algorithm. Finally, Remark 1's conditions (16) are not part of the original formulation (12); they are introduced later and assumed realistic. If an optimal ξ violates them, the model solved is not the model stated. All of these are load-bearing, not cosmetic.

That said, the paper is not a waste of anyone's time. The modeling is careful, the literature coverage is honest, and the mapping idea may be salvageable with a weaker convergence claim (e.g., under discretized ξ) or a proper proof under additional assumptions. I would send it to peer review, because a good referee could push the authors to either prove the theorem or temper the claim, and the problem is important enough for that effort. My own verdict would be major revision, not accept.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a two-stage robust distribution network reconfiguration (RDNR) problem in which renewable generator (RG) resizing acts as a here-and-now decision that changes the uncertainty set, i.e., decision-dependent uncertainty (DDU). The proposed solution method, mapping-based column-and-constraint generation (C&CG), returns to the master problem a KKT-based mapping K(ξ, λ*) from the resizing variable ξ to an extreme point of the transformed polyhedral uncertainty set W(ξ). The authors claim finite-step convergence for polyhedral or finite uncertainty sets, present a sensitivity analysis with respect to uncertainty-set parameters, and report case studies on IEEE 13-, 33-, and 123-bus networks comparing against modified Benders dual decomposition.

Significance. If the central convergence claim were valid, the paper would provide a useful algorithm for two-stage DDU with SOCP recourse, a class that is not covered by existing linear-convergence proofs. The modeling idea of RG resizing as an upper bound on renewable output is practically motivated, and the paper honestly identifies the lack of relatively complete recourse and includes comparisons with a published alternative. However, the finite-convergence claim is not established: the argument conflates extreme points of a single polytope with the infinite union of extreme points of a parametrized family, and the subproblem and master problem contain unanalyzed bilinear and complementarity terms. These are load-bearing gaps, not presentation issues.

major comments (6)

[III.B.4] The finite-convergence claim rests on the statements that Q(x,w) is convex in w, that its maximizer is an extreme point of W(ξ), and that 'the MP with all extreme points attached to its constraints becomes equivalent to RDNR (12)'. This argument conflates extreme points of a single polytope W(ξ) with extreme points of the family {W(ξ): ξ ∈ Ξ}. For continuous ξ, the union of vertices over all ξ is generally infinite (already in one dimension, every point w = ξ on an interval is a vertex of the set {wmin ≤ w ≤ wmax, w ≤ ξ} for some ξ). Moreover, the cut added in Step 6 uses K(ξ, λ^k*) with λ^k* fixed from the previous SP iterate; this set only describes maximizers of the linear objective −(G^T λ^k*)^T w over W(ξ). The true worst-case at a new ξ maximizes Q(x,w), whose supporting dual λ*(ξ) generally varies with ξ. Nothing in the paper shows that finitely many λ* suffice to represent the value function over the continuum of ξ. Thus Algorithm 1's finite termination is not established, and the argument as written is invalid.
[III.B.3] The subproblem SP is a bilinear program max_{w∈W(ξ^k), λ∈Λ} λ^T(Ax^k+γ) − λ^T G w with SOC constraints on λ. The text says the bilinear term can be linearized by big-M after representing extreme points of W(ξ) with binary variables, but no explicit binary reformulation is given and no algorithm for solving this nonconvex problem is described. The optimal λ^k* and w^k* are coupled, so the later reuse of K(ξ, λ^k*) in the master problem assumes that this λ^k* remains relevant for other ξ, which is not justified. The paper needs a concrete, verifiable solution method for SP and a correctness argument for the resulting master cuts.
[III.B.2] The master problem (24) imposes w_i ∈ K(ξ, λ_i*), where K(ξ, λ_i*) in (20) contains the complementarity conditions π ∘ (F w − f) = 0 and θ ∘ (w − ξ) = 0. These constraints are nonconvex, and no linearization or solver strategy for the master problem is described. The big-M remark near (18) applies to the bilinear term in the subproblem, not to the complementarity constraints in the master. Without a concrete reformulation, the tractability of the master problem and its claimed lower-bound property are not established.
[Remark 1] The equivalence between the original uncertainty set (9), defined through w = min(ŵ, ξ), and the transformed polyhedron (15) is asserted under conditions (16) but not proved. A proof must show that for every w satisfying (15), there exists ŵ ∈ Ŵ with w = min(ŵ, ξ). Furthermore, problem (12) as stated only imposes ξ ≤ wmax, while the master problem imposes the additional constraints (16); the paper never reconciles this gap between the stated model and the solved model. This is not merely cosmetic, because the modeling claim relies on this equivalence.
[III.B.1] Replacing the robust feasibility check by the penalty term m_s 1^T s in (23) gives finite upper bounds even when (x, ξ) is not robustly feasible. The paper states that for robustly feasible (x, ξ) the relaxed model coincides with the original, but no proof is given, and no argument shows that the penalized problem's optimal solution has s = 0. The case studies do not report the resulting slack values. Consequently, the algorithm may terminate at a first-stage decision that is infeasible for the original two-stage problem (12), so the empirical 'optimality' claims are not supported.
[IV] The sensitivity analysis is presented as a theoretical contribution, but it lacks formal statements. The dual variables of the LP (19) are interpreted as sensitivities, yet no theorem establishes how the optimal value of (17) or of the full RDNR problem varies with the parameters f, Γt, or Γi. The derivation of ϑξ as 'the smaller of the optimal θ and the cost factor cξ' is asserted without proof, and the discussion of topology sensitivity in terms of Fig. 2 is heuristic. This section needs precise statements and proofs before it can support the claimed contribution.

minor comments (6)

[(18)] The notation λ_t^T (Ax + γ) in (18) is confusing because the dual variables for (13b) are not explicitly indexed; clarify the sign and dimension conventions for λ_t, λ_h, and μ.
[Remark 2] Remark 2 says K(ξ, λ*) 'induces K(ξ, λ*) as a mapping: ξ ↦ w*', but K is a set that also contains nonunique (π, θ); the wording should distinguish the set-valued object from the induced scenario mapping.
[Algorithm 1] The tolerance ε and the big-M constant M in the initialization are not specified in the case studies; the empirical claim of finite-step convergence is not meaningful without stating how these parameters were chosen.
[Table IV] Table IV has no entry for the 123-bus network at T = 24; the paper should state whether this case exceeded a time limit, failed to converge, or was not run.
[V.B] The sensitivity values in Table III are reported without a derivation of the directional derivative from (30); the text should explain how the zero entries arise and how the positive entries are computed.
[V.B] Equation (31b) is described as 'equivalently transformed' from constraints in F w ≤ f, but the displayed equality forces w4, w9, and w25 to their forecast values; please clarify the transformation and the role of the absolute values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained; the finite-step convergence gap is a soundness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce any claimed result to its own inputs. The uncertainty set W(ξ) is defined independently in (9) and transformed to (15); the recourse value Q(x,w) is a standard SOCP second-stage value; and the mapping K(ξ,λ*) is constructed from the KKT conditions (20) of the subproblem (19), not from the convergence conclusion. The master constraints (24) are generated from subproblem solutions and are not fitted parameters later renamed as predictions. The main weakness—'the MP with all extreme points attached becomes equivalent to RDNR. Therefore, Algorithm 1 can converge in a finite number of steps'—is an unsupported finiteness argument, because the family {W(ξ)} has infinitely many extreme points as ξ varies over a continuum; however, this is a soundness/correctness gap, not a circularity. Remark 1's equivalence conditions (16) are explicitly stated assumptions rather than results defined in terms of each other. The only self-citation is [10] in the literature review of distributionally robust DNR methods, and it is not load-bearing for the algorithm, convergence proof, or sensitivity analysis. Case studies on IEEE networks provide independent empirical validation. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the exactness of the SOCP relaxation, the radiality characterization, LP/SOCP duality, and an equivalence between the min-based uncertainty set and the polyhedral set (15). The last assumption is the most fragile because it is only justified by a practicality remark and is not enforced in the model.

free parameters (4)

RG output bound multiplier = 0.5 and 1.5 times predicted output
Section V.A sets the natural RG output range this way for all test cases; it is a modeling choice rather than a fitted value from data.
Temporal and spatial uncertainty budgets Γt, Γi = Γt = 0.5 Nw, Γi = 0.5 T
Section V.A fixes these budgets across networks and time periods; they directly shape the uncertainty set and influence the reported results.
Penalty coefficient ms = unspecified large positive factor
Section III.B.1 introduces ms for the relaxed active power balance; no numerical value is given.
Big-M constants = unspecified
Big-M is used in voltage constraints (3) and in linearizing bilinear terms; no values or tuning rules are provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The second-order cone relaxation (2) is exact for the optimal radial network.
Section II.A.2 relies on convex relaxation results from [5], [23]; exactness is not checked in the case studies.
domain assumption Radiality constraints (7) fully characterize feasible topologies.
Section II.C assumes one substation and a prespecified loop set; this is standard for radial distribution networks.
standard math Strong duality holds for the second-stage SOCP and its dual (18) and (25).
Section III.A derives the KKT mapping from the dual; this requires a constraint qualification, which is not discussed.
standard math KKT conditions of the linear program (19) characterize all worst-case scenarios.
Section III.A applies LP KKT conditions; regularity is standard for polyhedral feasible sets but not stated.
ad hoc to paper The transformed uncertainty set (15) is equivalent to the original set (9) under conditions (16).
Remark 1 introduces constraints (16) as realistic, but they are not enforced in problem (12); if ξ violates (16), the reformulation misrepresents the original DDU set.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Distribution Network Reconfiguration Using Mapping-based Column-and-Constraint Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3LCR3TQ

@misc{pith2026250524677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Distribution Network Reconfiguration Using Mapping-based Column-and-Constraint Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3LCR3TQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24677}
}

read the original abstract

The integration of intermittent renewable energy sources into distribution networks introduces significant uncertainties and fluctuations, challenging their operational security, stability, and efficiency. This paper considers robust distribution network reconfiguration (RDNR) with renewable generator resizing, modeled as a two-stage robust optimization (RO) problem with decision-dependent uncertainty (DDU). Our model optimizes resizing decisions as the upper bounds of renewable generator outputs, while also optimizing the network topology. We design a mapping-based column-and-constraint generation (C&CG) algorithm to address the computational challenges raised by DDU. Sensitivity analyses further explore the impact of uncertainty set parameters on optimal solutions. Case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in reducing computational complexity while ensuring solution optimality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24677 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The second-stage optimal value Q(x, w) reaches the same worst-case value under topologies x1, x2. TABLE I INFORMATION OF TEST NETWORKS Test network 13-bus 33-bus 123-bus No. of RG buses 3 6 6 No. of BES buses 2 4 8 No. of redundant branches 3 5 5 Further, the first-stage solution of RDNR consists of the network topology and the RG resizing. Denote their sensitivities by ϑx and ϑξ, respectively. The optimal resizing … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** IEEE 33-bus distribution network with five redundant branches. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Convergence of the mapping-based C&CG algorithm (Algorithm 1) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Iteration of the modified Benders dual decomposition algorithm in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Optimal topology of RDNR in the IEEE 33-bus network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[12]

Robust generation dispatch with strategic renewable power curtailment and decision-dependent uncertainty,

Y . Chen and W. Wei, “Robust generation dispatch with strategic renewable power curtailment and decision-dependent uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 4640–4654, 2023

work page 2023
[17]

Two-stage robust optimization under decision dependent uncertainty,

Y . Zhang, F. Liu, Y . Su, Y . Chen, Z. Wang, and J. P. Catal˜ao, “Two-stage robust optimization under decision dependent uncertainty,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1295–1306, 2022

work page 2022
[20]

Robust generation dispatch with purchase of renewable power and load predictions,

R. Xie, P. Pinson, Y . Xu, and Y . Chen, “Robust generation dispatch with purchase of renewable power and load predictions,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1486–1501, 2024

work page 2024
[21]

Two-stage robust optimization with decision dependent uncertainty,

B. Zeng and W. Wang, “Two-stage robust optimization with decision dependent uncertainty,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16484 , 2022

arXiv 2022
[1]

Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,

M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, 1989

work page 1989
[2]

Imposing radiality constraints in distribution system optimization problems,

M. Lavorato, J. F. Franco, M. J. Rider, and R. Romero, “Imposing radiality constraints in distribution system optimization problems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 172–180, 2012

work page 2012
[3]

Convex models of distribution system reconfiguration,

J. A. Taylor and F. S. Hover, “Convex models of distribution system reconfiguration,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1407–1413, 2012

2012
[4]

Distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction,

S. Civanlar, J. Grainger, H. Yin, and S. Lee, “Distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1217–1223, 1988

work page 1988

Show all 28 references

[5]

Feeder reconfiguration in distribution networks based on convex relaxation of OPF,

Q. Peng, Y . Tang, and S. H. Low, “Feeder reconfiguration in distribution networks based on convex relaxation of OPF,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1793–1804, 2015

2015
[6]

Switch opening and exchange method for stochastic distribution network reconfiguration,

J. Zhan, W. Liu, C. Chung, and J. Yang, “Switch opening and exchange method for stochastic distribution network reconfiguration,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 2995–3007, 2020

2020
[7]

Minimum loss network reconfigu- ration using mixed-integer convex programming,

R. A. Jabr, R. Singh, and B. C. Pal, “Minimum loss network reconfigu- ration using mixed-integer convex programming,” IEEE Transactions on Power systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1106–1115, 2012

2012
[8]

Robust distribution network reconfiguration,

C. Lee, C. Liu, S. Mehrotra, and Z. Bie, “Robust distribution network reconfiguration,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 836–842, 2015

2015
[9]

Challenges of renewable energy penetration on power system flexibility: A survey,

S. Impram, S. V . Nese, and B. Oral, “Challenges of renewable energy penetration on power system flexibility: A survey,” Energy Strategy Reviews, vol. 31, no. 100539, 2020

2020
[10]

An adaptive distributionally robust model for three-phase distribution network reconfiguration,

W. Zheng, W. Huang, D. J. Hill, and Y . Hou, “An adaptive distributionally robust model for three-phase distribution network reconfiguration,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1224–1237, 2021

2021
[11]

Distribution system reconfiguration under uncertain load and renewable generation,

H. Haghighat and B. Zeng, “Distribution system reconfiguration under uncertain load and renewable generation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2666–2675, 2016

2016
[13]

Timescales of energy storage needed for reducing renewable energy curtailment,

P. Denholm and T. Mai, “Timescales of energy storage needed for reducing renewable energy curtailment,” Renewable energy, vol. 130, pp. 388–399, 2019

2019
[14]

Examples of wind energy curtailment practices,

J. Rogers, S. Fink, and K. Porter, “Examples of wind energy curtailment practices,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, US, Tech. Rep., 2010

2010
[15]

Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs,

A. Ben-Tal, A. Goryashko, E. Guslitzer, and A. Nemirovski, “Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs,” Mathematical Program- ming, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 351–376, 2004

2004
[16]

Optimization under decision-dependent uncertainty,

O. Nohadani and K. Sharma, “Optimization under decision-dependent uncertainty,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1773– 1795, 2018

2018
[18]

Multistage robust mixed-integer optimization under endogenous uncertainty,

W. Feng, Y . Feng, and Q. Zhang, “Multistage robust mixed-integer optimization under endogenous uncertainty,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 294, no. 2, pp. 460–475, 2021

2021
[19]

Robust microgrid dispatch with real-time energy sharing and endogenous uncertainty,

M. Yang, R. Xie, Y . Zhang, and Y . Chen, “Robust microgrid dispatch with real-time energy sharing and endogenous uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, early access , 2025

2025
[22]

On algorithms for enumerating all circuits of a graph,

P. Mateti and N. Deo, “On algorithms for enumerating all circuits of a graph,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90–99, 1976

1976
[23]

Branch flow model: Relaxations and convexification—part I,

M. Farivar and S. H. Low, “Branch flow model: Relaxations and convexification—part I,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2554–2564, 2013

2013
[24]

Stochastic convex programming: relatively complete recourse and induced feasibility,

R. T. Rockafellar and R. J. Wets, “Stochastic convex programming: relatively complete recourse and induced feasibility,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 574–589, 1976

1976
[25]

An exact algorithm for two-stage robust optimization with mixed integer recourse problems,

L. Zhao and B. Zeng, “An exact algorithm for two-stage robust optimization with mixed integer recourse problems,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://optimization-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ 3310.pdf

2012
[26]

Convex relaxations and linear approximation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks,

L. Gan and S. H. Low, “Convex relaxations and linear approximation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks,” in Power Systems Computation Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 2014, pp. 1–9

2014
[27]

Constructing uncertainty sets for robust linear optimization,

D. Bertsimas and D. B. Brown, “Constructing uncertainty sets for robust linear optimization,” Operations Research, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1483–1495, 2009

2009
[28]

Data package for power system modelling,

Open Power System Data platform, “Data package for power system modelling,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.25832/time series/2020-10-06

2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

Robust generation dispatch with strategic renewable power curtailment and decision-dependent uncertainty,

Y . Chen and W. Wei, “Robust generation dispatch with strategic renewable power curtailment and decision-dependent uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 4640–4654, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [17]

Two-stage robust optimization under decision dependent uncertainty,

Y . Zhang, F. Liu, Y . Su, Y . Chen, Z. Wang, and J. P. Catal˜ao, “Two-stage robust optimization under decision dependent uncertainty,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1295–1306, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [20]

Robust generation dispatch with purchase of renewable power and load predictions,

R. Xie, P. Pinson, Y . Xu, and Y . Chen, “Robust generation dispatch with purchase of renewable power and load predictions,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1486–1501, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [21]

Two-stage robust optimization with decision dependent uncertainty,

B. Zeng and W. Wang, “Two-stage robust optimization with decision dependent uncertainty,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16484 , 2022

arXiv 2022

[5] [1]

Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,

M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, 1989

work page 1989

[6] [2]

Imposing radiality constraints in distribution system optimization problems,

M. Lavorato, J. F. Franco, M. J. Rider, and R. Romero, “Imposing radiality constraints in distribution system optimization problems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 172–180, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [3]

Convex models of distribution system reconfiguration,

J. A. Taylor and F. S. Hover, “Convex models of distribution system reconfiguration,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1407–1413, 2012

2012

[8] [4]

Distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction,

S. Civanlar, J. Grainger, H. Yin, and S. Lee, “Distribution feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1217–1223, 1988

work page 1988