pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.01232 · v4 · pith:G4G2JQT7new · submitted 2026-03-21 · 🧮 math.OC

Large-Scale Resilience Planning for Wildfire-Prone Electricity-System via Adaptive Robust Optimization

Shuyi Chen , Shixiang Zhu , Ramteen Sioshansi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords wildfire resilienceelectricity distribution planningrobust optimizationtri-level optimizationpublic safety power shutoffssectionalizationcolumn-and-constraint generation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A tri-level robust optimization model jointly plans infrastructure and operational responses to reduce wildfire ignition risk from power lines while preserving service reliability.

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

The paper presents a framework that optimizes long-term decisions on feeder sectionalization and protection configuration together with short-term adaptive responses such as public safety power shutoffs under uncertain ignition risk. The model is cast as a tri-level optimization problem whose middle level represents wildfire risk realization and whose lower level selects operational mitigations. A data-driven uncertainty set that merges segment-level prediction intervals with group-level budgets allows the tri-level structure to be recast as a tractable robust optimization problem solved by column-and-constraint generation. Experiments on synthetic instances and a large-scale investor-owned utility distribution system demonstrate that the coordinated plans lower wildfire risk while maintaining acceptable service levels.

Core claim

The central claim is that infrastructure configuration and operational mitigation strategies can be jointly optimized through a tri-level adaptive robust optimization model equipped with a data-driven uncertainty set that combines segment-level prediction intervals and group-level budgets; the resulting reformulation yields a scalable column-and-constraint generation algorithm whose solutions on realistic distribution systems achieve substantial wildfire-risk reduction without compromising reliability.

What carries the argument

Tri-level optimization model whose upper level selects infrastructure configuration, middle level realizes ignition uncertainty via the data-driven set, and lower level chooses adaptive operational decisions, reformulated into tractable robust optimization and solved by column-and-constraint generation.

If this is right

  • Sectionalization decisions become more valuable because they enable targeted rather than system-wide operational interventions.
  • The column-and-constraint generation algorithm scales to large distribution networks, making the model usable for real utility planning.
  • Coordinated planning yields measurable risk reduction in both synthetic tests and the full-scale case study while service reliability remains within acceptable bounds.
  • The uncertainty set construction allows the model to incorporate prediction data without requiring full distributional assumptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same tri-level structure could be reused for other spatially correlated hazards such as ice storms if analogous uncertainty sets are built.
  • Embedding the model in a rolling-horizon setting with updated weather forecasts would test whether risk reductions persist under non-stationary conditions.
  • Extending the lower level to include customer-level equity constraints would reveal trade-offs between aggregate risk reduction and service equity across neighborhoods.

Load-bearing premise

The data-driven uncertainty set that combines segment-level prediction intervals with group-level uncertainty budgets accurately represents system-wide ignition uncertainty.

What would settle it

Apply the model's recommended sectionalization and protection plans to the real utility network for one fire season and compare observed ignition events and customer interruption durations against the levels predicted by the model and against a baseline without coordinated planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01232 by Ramteen Sioshansi, Shixiang Zhu, Shuyi Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The decision pipeline of wildfire resilience planning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Synthetic results across hyperparameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: California case study results under different planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Wildfire risk poses a growing challenge for electric utilities, as powerline failures can ignite wildfires while large fires can disrupt grid operations. Utilities increasingly rely on operational interventions such as Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) and fast-trip protection to mitigate ignition risk, but these measures can cause widespread service disruptions if deployed indiscriminately. Infrastructure planning decisions--such as feeder sectionalization and protection configuration--play a key role in determining how effectively these interventions can be targeted. We develop a planning framework for wildfire resilience that jointly optimizes long-term infrastructure configuration and short-term operational response under uncertain ignition risk. The problem is formulated as a tri-level optimization model capturing the interaction between infrastructure planning, wildfire risk realization, and adaptive operational decisions. To represent system-wide ignition uncertainty, we construct a data-driven uncertainty set that combines segment-level prediction intervals with group-level uncertainty budgets. Leveraging the model structure, we reformulate the problem as a tractable robust optimization model and develop a scalable column-and-constraint generation algorithm. Synthetic experiments and a large-scale case study on an investor-owned utility distribution system show that coordinated planning of sectionalization and operational mitigation strategies can substantially reduce wildfire risk while maintaining service reliability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a tri-level optimization model for jointly optimizing long-term infrastructure planning (e.g., feeder sectionalization and protection configuration) and short-term adaptive operational responses (e.g., PSPS and fast-trip protection) to mitigate wildfire ignition risk in electricity distribution systems. Ignition uncertainty is represented via a data-driven uncertainty set that combines segment-level prediction intervals with group-level uncertainty budgets; the tri-level model is reformulated as a tractable robust optimization problem and solved with a column-and-constraint generation algorithm. Synthetic experiments and a large-scale case study on an investor-owned utility system are used to claim that coordinated planning substantially reduces wildfire risk while maintaining service reliability.

Significance. If the uncertainty-set construction is faithful and the reformulation exact, the framework would offer a scalable, practically relevant tool for utilities to balance ignition-risk mitigation against reliability impacts under growing wildfire threats. The explicit tri-level structure, data-driven uncertainty modeling, and large-scale case study constitute the primary contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the constructed uncertainty set 'accurately represents system-wide ignition uncertainty' and enables valid risk-reduction conclusions rests on an unvalidated modeling assumption. No coverage probabilities, calibration diagnostics, tail-event performance, or comparison against a joint probabilistic model of segment-level ignitions are reported, leaving open the possibility that spatial correlations exceed the group budgets or that intervals are mis-calibrated.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the tri-level model 'reformulate[s] ... as a tractable robust optimization model' whose solutions remain valid under realized ignitions requires verification that the reformulation is exact (or conservatively valid) rather than approximate. No small-instance numerical check is described that recovers identical decisions between the original tri-level problem and the robust reformulation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our modeling assumptions and verification steps. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the constructed uncertainty set 'accurately represents system-wide ignition uncertainty' and enables valid risk-reduction conclusions rests on an unvalidated modeling assumption. No coverage probabilities, calibration diagnostics, tail-event performance, or comparison against a joint probabilistic model of segment-level ignitions are reported, leaving open the possibility that spatial correlations exceed the group budgets or that intervals are mis-calibrated.

    Authors: The uncertainty set is constructed from empirical segment-level prediction intervals and group-level budgets calibrated to historical ignition patterns to provide a conservative bound on joint realizations. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not report explicit coverage probabilities, calibration diagnostics, or comparisons to a joint probabilistic model. In the revision we will add a dedicated validation subsection that computes empirical coverage rates on held-out data, presents calibration plots, and compares the budgeted set against a fitted multivariate model to quantify any excess conservatism or under-coverage. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the tri-level model 'reformulate[s] ... as a tractable robust optimization model' whose solutions remain valid under realized ignitions requires verification that the reformulation is exact (or conservatively valid) rather than approximate. No small-instance numerical check is described that recovers identical decisions between the original tri-level problem and the robust reformulation.

    Authors: The reformulation is exact: the innermost operational problem is dualized and strong duality holds because the recourse problem is linear and the uncertainty set is polyhedral. Nevertheless, we agree that an explicit numerical check on small instances would strengthen the claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a small-scale verification experiment on a toy network, solving both the original tri-level formulation (via enumeration of uncertainty realizations) and the robust counterpart to confirm that the obtained planning decisions and worst-case operational responses coincide. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation begins from external data-driven uncertainty set and physical model structure

full rationale

The paper's central chain starts from physical planning/operational decisions, constructs an externally data-driven uncertainty set (segment-level prediction intervals plus group-level budgets) from observed ignition data, then reformulates the tri-level model into a tractable robust program via column-and-constraint generation. No quoted equations or self-citations reduce any prediction, uniqueness claim, or result to a fitted parameter or prior self-referential definition by construction; the uncertainty set is presented as an input constructed outside the optimization, and the reformulation exploits model structure without load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the tri-level interaction model and the accuracy of the constructed uncertainty set; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract, but the group-level budgets function as tunable conservatism controls.

free parameters (1)
  • group-level uncertainty budgets
    Used to control the level of conservatism in the robust model representing ignition uncertainty; chosen based on data or judgment to balance risk coverage and solution quality.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The tri-level optimization problem can be reformulated as a tractable robust optimization model by leveraging its structure
    Invoked in the abstract when stating the reformulation step prior to developing the column-and-constraint generation algorithm.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1462 out tokens · 40919 ms · 2026-05-25T07:17:24.541309+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Predictive and Prescriptive AI toward Optimizing Wildfire Suppression

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new optimization algorithm with double machine learning for wildfire spread estimation enables better crew assignments that reduce total area burned.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Wildfire-resilient power systems: Risk, mitigation, and planning perspec- tives,

    H. Vahedi, M. Alizadeh, and K. Wang, “Wildfire-resilient power systems: Risk, mitigation, and planning perspec- tives,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 1123–1135, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [3]

    Wildfire mitigation plans in power systems: A literature review,

    D. A. Z. Vazquez, F. Qiu, N. Fan, and K. Sharp, “Wildfire mitigation plans in power systems: A literature review,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 3540–3551, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [4]

    Camp fire incident report,

    CAL FIRE, “Camp fire incident report,” California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Tech. Rep., 2019, accessed: 2025-10-30. [Online]. Available: https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4995/campfire cause report.pdf

    work page 2019

  4. [5]

    Pg&e’s $13.5 billion wildfire settlement and bankruptcy plan,

    New York Times, “Pg&e’s $13.5 billion wildfire settlement and bankruptcy plan,”The New York Times, 2020, accessed: 2025-10-30. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/business/pge-bankruptc y-wildfires.html

    work page 2020

  5. [6]

    A review of public safety power shutoffs (psps) for wildfire mitiga- tion: Policies, practices, models and data sources,

    C. Huang, Q. Hu, L. Sang, D. D. Lucas, R. Wong, B. Wang, W. Hong, M. Yao, and V . Donde, “A review of public safety power shutoffs (psps) for wildfire mitiga- tion: Policies, practices, models and data sources,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 187–197, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [7]

    Optimally scheduling public safety power shutoffs,

    A. Lesage-Landry, F. Pellerin, J. A. Taylor, and D. S. Callaway, “Optimally scheduling public safety power shutoffs,”Stochastic Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    Protective equipment and device settings (peds),

    California Public Utilities Commission, “Protective equipment and device settings (peds),” Webpage, accessed 2026-02-21. [Online]. Available: https: //www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/wildfires/p rotective-equipment-device-settings

    work page 2026

  8. [9]

    Utility benchmarking of fast trip schemes and relay technologies for fire mitigation,

    ——, “Utility benchmarking of fast trip schemes and relay technologies for fire mitigation,” CPUC, Tech. Rep., 2022, accessed 2026-02-21. [Online]. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions /safety-and-enforcement-division/documents/epss-reports /utility-benchmarking-of-fast-trip-schemes-and-relay-tec hnologies-for-fire-mitigation.pdf

    work page 2022

  9. [10]

    Optimal sectionalizing switches allocation in distribution networks,

    G. Celli and F. Pilo, “Optimal sectionalizing switches allocation in distribution networks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1167–1172, 1999

    work page 1999

  10. [11]

    Optimal switching device placement in radial distribution systems,

    R. Billinton and S. Jonnavithula, “Optimal switching device placement in radial distribution systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1646– 1651, 1996

    work page 1996

  11. [12]

    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

    work page 2012

  12. [13]

    Solving two-stage robust optimization problems using a column-and-constraint generation method,

    B. Zeng and L. Zhao, “Solving two-stage robust optimization problems using a column-and-constraint generation method,”Operations Research Letters, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 457–461, 2013. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016763771 3000618

    work page 2013

  13. [14]

    Hierarchical probabilistic conformal prediction for distributed energy resources adoption,

    W. Zhou and S. Zhu, “Hierarchical probabilistic conformal prediction for distributed energy resources adoption,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ab s/2411.12193

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    Max-rank: Efficient multiple testing for conformal prediction,

    A. Timans, C.-N. Straehle, K. Sakmann, C. Naesseth, and E. Nalisnick, “Max-rank: Efficient multiple testing for conformal prediction,” inProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [16]

    Fire ready?: White paper finds many u.s. power utilities unprepared for wildfire risk,

    R. Jordan, “Fire ready?: White paper finds many u.s. power utilities unprepared for wildfire risk,” CEPP News Releases, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //woods.stanford.edu/news/fire-ready-white-paper-finds -many-us-power-utilities-unprepared-wildfire-risk

    work page 2025

  16. [17]

    Utility benchmarking of fast trip schemes and relay technologies for fire mitigatio,

    CPUC, “Utility benchmarking of fast trip schemes and relay technologies for fire mitigatio,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-websi te/divisions/safety-and-enforcement-division/documents/ epss-reports/utility-benchmarking-of-fast-trip-schemes-a nd-relay-technologies-for-fire-mitigation.pdf

    work page 2025

  17. [18]

    A framework for risk assessment and optimal line upgrade selection to mitigate wildfire risk,

    S. Taylor and L. A. Roald, “A framework for risk assessment and optimal line upgrade selection to mitigate wildfire risk,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 213, p. 108592, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.scienc edirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779622006794

    work page 2022

  18. [19]

    Decision-dependent uncertainty-aware distribution system planning under wildfire risk,

    F. Pianc ´o, A. Moreira, B. Fanzeres, R. Jiang, C. Zhao, and M. Heleno, “Decision-dependent uncertainty-aware distribution system planning under wildfire risk,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 4574– 4590, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [20]

    Resilient expansion planning of electricity grid under prolonged wildfire risk,

    R. Bayani and S. D. Manshadi, “Resilient expansion planning of electricity grid under prolonged wildfire risk,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 3719–3731, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [21]

    Balancing wildfire risk and power outages through optimized power shut- offs,

    N. Rhodes, L. Ntaimo, and L. Roald, “Balancing wildfire risk and power outages through optimized power shut- offs,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 3118–3128, 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [22]

    Pmu-driven non-preemptive disconnection of overhead lines at the approach or break- out of forest fires,

    P. Moutis and U. Sriram, “Pmu-driven non-preemptive disconnection of overhead lines at the approach or break- out of forest fires,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 168–176, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [23]

    Quantifying grid resilience against extreme weather us- ing large-scale customer power outage data,

    S. Zhu, R. Yao, Y . Xie, F. Qiu, Y . Qiu, and X. Wu, “Quantifying grid resilience against extreme weather us- ing large-scale customer power outage data,”INFORMS Journal on Data Science, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [24]

    Convolutional non- homogeneous poisson process and its application to wildfire ignition risk quantification for power delivery networks,

    G. Wei, F. Qiu, and X. Liu, “Convolutional non- homogeneous poisson process and its application to wildfire ignition risk quantification for power delivery networks,”Technometrics, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 11–22, 12

    work page

  24. [25]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0040 1706.2024.2365729

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0040 1706.2024.2365729

    work page doi:10.1080/0040 2024

  25. [26]

    Nor- malized nonconformity measures for regression confor- mal prediction,

    H. Papadopoulos, A. Gammerman, and V . V ovk, “Nor- malized nonconformity measures for regression confor- mal prediction,” inProceedings of the 26th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications, ser. AIA ’08. USA: ACTA Press, 2008, p. 64–69

    work page 2008

  26. [27]

    V ovk, A

    V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer,Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  27. [28]

    A tutorial on conformal prediction,

    G. Shafer and V . V ovk, “A tutorial on conformal prediction,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 9, pp. 371–421, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://jm lr.csail.mit.edu/papers/volume9/shafer08a/shafer08a.pdf

    work page 2008

  28. [29]

    Conformal prediction for time series,

    C. Xu and Y . Xie, “Conformal prediction for time series,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 11 575–11 587, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [30]

    Gen-dfl: Decision-focused generative learning for ro- bust decision making,

    P. Z. Wang, J. Liang, S. Chen, F. Fioretto, and S. Zhu, “Gen-dfl: Decision-focused generative learning for ro- bust decision making,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05468, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Integration of preventive and emergency responses for power grid resilience enhancement,

    G. Huang, J. Wang, C. Chen, J. Qi, and C. Guo, “Integration of preventive and emergency responses for power grid resilience enhancement,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 4451–4463, 2017

    work page 2017

  31. [32]

    Enhancing electricity- system resilience with adaptive robust optimization and conformal uncertainty characterization,

    S. Chen, S. Zhu, and R. Sioshansi, “Enhancing electricity- system resilience with adaptive robust optimization and conformal uncertainty characterization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11627, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    Global-decision- focused neural odes for proactive grid resilience manage- ment,

    S. Chen, F. Fioretto, F. Qiu, and S. Zhu, “Global-decision- focused neural odes for proactive grid resilience manage- ment,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [34]

    Network flow models for robust binary optimization with selective adaptability,

    M. Bodur, T. C. Y . Chan, and I. Y . Zhu, “Network flow models for robust binary optimization with selective adaptability,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.19471

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    Mul- tistage adaptive robust optimization for the unit commit- ment problem,

    A. Lorca, X. A. Sun, E. Litvinov, and T. Zheng, “Mul- tistage adaptive robust optimization for the unit commit- ment problem,”Operations Research, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 32–51, 2016

    work page 2016

  35. [36]

    Power line failures and catastrophic wildfires under extreme weather conditions,

    J. W. Mitchell, “Power line failures and catastrophic wildfires under extreme weather conditions,”Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 35, pp. 726–735, 2013

    work page 2013

  36. [37]

    Utility wildfire mitigation plans,

    California Public Utilities Commission, “Utility wildfire mitigation plans,” California Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA, Tech. Rep., 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/wildfires/u tility-wildfire-mitigation-plans

    work page 2020

  37. [38]

    Protective equipment and device settings (enhanced powerline safety settings),

    ——, “Protective equipment and device settings (enhanced powerline safety settings),” California Public Utilities Commission, Tech. Rep., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topic s/wildfires/protective-equipment-device-settings

    work page 2023

  38. [39]

    Wildfire benefits of advanced grid technologies,

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, “Wildfire benefits of advanced grid technologies,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Tech. Rep., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://wildfire.pnnl.gov/mitigationPlans/c ontent/analysis/Wildfire%20Benefits%20of%20Advance d%20Grid%20Technologies.pdf

    work page 2024

  39. [40]

    McCullagh and J

    P. McCullagh and J. A. Nelder,Generalized Linear Mod- els, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1989

    work page 1989

  40. [41]

    Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part i — convex underestimating problems,

    G. P. McCormick, “Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part i — convex underestimating problems,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 10, pp. 147–175, 1976. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12478942

    work page 1976

  41. [42]

    Wildfire and wildfire safety,

    California Public Utilities Commission, “Wildfire and wildfire safety,” https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-a nd-topics/wildfires, 2026, accessed March 15, 2026

    work page 2026

  42. [43]

    High-resolution rapid refresh (HRRR) model,

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “High-resolution rapid refresh (HRRR) model,” https: //rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/, 2024, accessed: 2024-11-11

    work page 2024

  43. [44]

    1/3rd arc-second digital eleva- tion models (dems),

    U.S. Geological Survey, “1/3rd arc-second digital eleva- tion models (dems),” The National Map, 3D Elevation Program (3DEP), 2025, raster digital dataset

    work page 2025

  44. [45]

    Google earth engine: Planetary- scale geospatial analysis for everyone,

    N. Gorelick, M. Hancher, M. Dixon, S. Ilyushchenko, D. Thau, and R. Moore, “Google earth engine: Planetary- scale geospatial analysis for everyone,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 202, pp. 18–27, 2017

    work page 2017

  45. [46]

    I. T. Jolliffe,Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer, 2002

    work page 2002

  46. [47]

    Vector autoregressions,

    J. H. Stock and M. W. Watson, “Vector autoregressions,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 101–115, December 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.15.4.101

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.101 2001

  47. [48]

    Image: a multivariate multi-site stochastic weather generator for european weather and climate,

    N. J. Sparks, S. R. Hardwick, M. Schmid, and R. Toumi, “Image: a multivariate multi-site stochastic weather generator for european weather and climate,” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 771–784, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1433-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00477-017-1433-9 2018

  48. [49]

    Modulation of economic losses from european floods by the north atlantic oscillation,

    S. Zanardo, T. Vricella, A. G. J. Hilberts, and P. J. Ward, “Modulation of economic losses from european floods by the north atlantic oscillation,”Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 256–264, 2019

    work page 2019

  49. [50]

    2020 census state redistricting data (public law 94-171) summary file,

    U.S. Census Bureau, “2020 census state redistricting data (public law 94-171) summary file,” https://www.census.g ov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summar y-files.html, 2021, accessed 2026-03-17

    work page 2020

  50. [51]

    Electric system reliability annual reports,

    California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), “Electric system reliability annual reports,” https://www.cpuc.ca. gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure /electric-reliability/electric-system-reliability-annual-rep orts, 2026

    work page 2026

  51. [52]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi .com

    work page 2026

  52. [53]

    High fire-threat district map,

    California Public Utilities Commission, “High fire-threat district map,” California Public Utilities Commission, Tech. Rep., 2021, revised in March 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-websi te/divisions/communications-division/documents/networ 13 k-resiliency/high fire-threat district map final.pdf

    work page 2021

  53. [54]

    Rio,Asymptotic Theory of Weakly Dependent Random Processes

    E. Rio,Asymptotic Theory of Weakly Dependent Random Processes. Springer, 2017. APPENDIX A. Proof of Theorem 1 Proof.Letm :=|D cal|and the empirical cumulative distri- bution function (CDF) of the calibration scores be ˆFm(q) := 1 m P k∈Dcal 1{ek ≤q}. LetF e denote their common marginal CDF. Define the event A := sup q∈R ˆFm(q)−F e(q) ≤ ϵ 2 . That is the e...

    work page 2017