arxiv: 2604.14184 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-31 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.AI· cs.SY

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

End-to-End Learning-based Operation of Integrated Energy Systems for Buildings and Data Centers

Zhenyu Pu , Yu Yang , Liang Yu , Xiaohong Guan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 23:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.AIcs.SY

keywords integrated energy systemsend-to-end learningoperational optimizationdata centerswaste heat recoverybuildingsuncertaintypredict-then-optimize

0 comments

The pith

End-to-end training of predictors jointly with constrained optimization improves integrated energy system operation for buildings and data centers by 7-9 percent.

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

The paper proposes a unified learning framework that trains models predicting multi-energy demand and supply together with the IES optimizer, so forecasts are shaped to reduce total energy costs instead of minimizing standalone prediction error. This addresses the gap that conventional predict-then-optimize pipelines often produce forecasts whose errors degrade real operational decisions under uncertainty. The approach also coordinates buildings and data centers by recovering DC waste heat for building use. Real-world case studies report 7-9 percent better operational performance than separate forecasting plus optimization, plus roughly 10 percent total energy cost reduction from the sector coupling. A reader would care because the method shows how to extract more value from uncertain renewables without demanding perfect forecasts.

Core claim

The central claim is that integrating the training of uncertain multi-energy variable predictors with the constrained optimization of the integrated energy system into one end-to-end differentiable framework guides the predictors toward forecasts that improve operational metrics such as total energy cost, producing 7-9 percent gains over predict-then-optimize baselines while enabling waste heat recovery from data centers to yield approximately 10 percent additional energy cost savings in coordinated building-DC operation.

What carries the argument

The unified end-to-end learning framework that back-propagates through the constrained IES optimizer to update prediction model parameters directly for operational performance.

Load-bearing premise

Jointly training the forecaster inside the optimizer loop will steer predictions toward better decisions without creating instability, bias, or violations that the solver cannot resolve.

What would settle it

Running the trained end-to-end model on held-out real-time data and observing that its total energy costs exceed those from a high-accuracy separate forecaster plus optimizer would falsify the claimed advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14184 by Liang Yu, Xiaohong Guan, Yu Yang, Zhenyu Pu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: End-to-end learning-based method for IES diiMdl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution of energy storage devices with End-to-End [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Predictions of uncertain variables with the Decoupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Buildings and data centers (DCs) are energy-intensive sectors, playing a critical role to achieve the low-carbon and sustainable energy transition targets. To this end, integrated energy system (IES) that incorporates diverse renewables, energy generation, conversion, and storage technologies to enable coordinated multi-energy supply have been widely investigated for both buildings and DCs. However, few works consider the two sectors jointly within IES to exploit their substantial synergistic benefits. Meanwhile, the operational optimization of IES remains challenging due to the difficulty to predict the multi-energy demand and supply accurately. To address these gaps, this paper investigates IES for coordinated multi-energy supply of buildings and DC, where the waste heat from DCs is recovered and reused to enhance energy efficiency. Moreover, an end-to-end learning-based method is proposed for the operational optimization of IES under uncertainty. Unlike conventional predict-then-optimize approaches, the proposed method integrates the training of prediction models for uncertain variables with the constrained optimization of IES into a unified learning framework, guiding the training of prediction models to improve operational performance, rather than prediction accuracy, thereby mitigating the impacts of predictions errors. Case studies based on real-world datasets show that the proposed methods improves the operational performance of IES by about 7-9% compared to existing predict-then-optimize methods. In addition, coordinating buildings and DCs within IES shows substantial economic benefits. In particular, the waste heat recovery from DCs leads to approximately 10% of total energy cost reduction of the IES.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Coordinating buildings and data centers through waste heat recovery in an IES delivers about 10% cost cuts, and the end-to-end learning method improves operational results by 7-9% over predict-then-optimize on real data.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work shows real value in treating buildings and data centers together in an integrated energy system, with waste heat recovery cutting total energy costs by about 10 percent. Their end-to-end learning approach also edges out conventional predict-then-optimize methods by 7 to 9 percent in operational performance on the case studies. The novelty comes from the joint modeling. Most earlier papers handle the two sectors in isolation, missing the chance to reuse data center heat for building needs. Applying end-to-end training here means the forecaster learns to produce predictions that directly help the optimizer minimize costs under constraints like multi-energy balances, renewables, and storage. That shift from pure accuracy to operational utility is the key change. The paper does well by grounding the claims in real-world datasets rather than synthetic cases. The reported improvements are concrete and tied to specific benefits like the heat recovery contribution. This makes the results easier to assess for practical impact. The softer part is the limited visibility into the training mechanics. The abstract mentions integrating prediction training with constrained optimization but does not detail the loss function, how constraints are enforced during backpropagation, or any checks for solution feasibility. The concern about out-of-distribution predictions leading to unstable or infeasible solutions is valid to probe; if the method relies on soft constraints without tracking violation rates, the gains could vary more than reported under different conditions. This paper suits readers focused on energy system operations, machine learning for optimization, and sustainability applications in buildings and computing infrastructure. It offers enough empirical evidence to be worth a close look for those building on similar frameworks. I recommend putting it through peer review. The application is relevant and the results are quantified, so referees can help tighten the methodological description and confirm the robustness.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes coordinating buildings and data centers within an integrated energy system (IES) that recovers waste heat from DCs to improve multi-energy efficiency. It introduces an end-to-end learning framework that jointly trains forecasting models for uncertain demand/supply variables together with the constrained operational optimization of the IES, rather than using separate predict-then-optimize stages. Real-world case studies are reported to show 7-9% better operational performance than conventional methods and approximately 10% total energy cost reduction attributable to heat recovery.

Significance. If the end-to-end training reliably produces feasible, stable solutions and the reported gains hold under rigorous validation, the work would demonstrate a practical way to mitigate prediction-error propagation in multi-energy IES optimization while quantifying the economic value of building-DC coordination. The approach aligns with sustainability objectives by exploiting synergies that are rarely modeled jointly.

major comments (2)

[Method / Unified Learning Framework] The abstract and method description provide no explicit formulation of the combined loss (prediction error plus operational cost), the mechanism for back-propagating gradients through the constrained optimizer, or any soft-penalty/relaxation terms used to enforce multi-energy balance constraints during training. Without these details it is impossible to verify whether small forecast shifts remain within the feasible region of the IES optimization.
[Case Studies] Case studies section: the claimed 7-9% operational improvement and 10% cost reduction from heat recovery are stated without reporting feasibility violation rates, out-of-distribution test performance, or sensitivity to forecast error magnitude. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim rests on the end-to-end framework producing stable, feasible solutions.

minor comments (1)

[Introduction / Model Formulation] Notation for uncertain variables and the IES energy-balance equations should be introduced earlier and used consistently to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify key aspects of our end-to-end learning framework and strengthen the validation of our case studies. We have revised the manuscript to address both major points by adding explicit mathematical formulations and additional robustness metrics.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Method / Unified Learning Framework] The abstract and method description provide no explicit formulation of the combined loss (prediction error plus operational cost), the mechanism for back-propagating gradients through the constrained optimizer, or any soft-penalty/relaxation terms used to enforce multi-energy balance constraints during training. Without these details it is impossible to verify whether small forecast shifts remain within the feasible region of the IES optimization.

Authors: We agree that these details were insufficiently explicit in the original submission. In the revised manuscript, Section III-B now includes the full combined loss: L = L_pred + λ * C_op, where L_pred is the mean-squared prediction error on uncertain demands and supplies, C_op is the operational cost obtained from the IES optimizer, and λ is a hyperparameter balancing the terms. Gradients are back-propagated through the constrained optimizer via a differentiable optimization layer that solves the KKT system of the quadratic program; we also introduce soft-penalty terms (quadratic penalties on multi-energy balance violations with adaptive Lagrange multipliers) to keep solutions feasible during training. These additions ensure small forecast perturbations remain inside the feasible region, as verified by the penalty-augmented loss. The revised text provides the complete equations and implementation pseudocode. revision: yes
Referee: [Case Studies] Case studies section: the claimed 7-9% operational improvement and 10% cost reduction from heat recovery are stated without reporting feasibility violation rates, out-of-distribution test performance, or sensitivity to forecast error magnitude. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim rests on the end-to-end framework producing stable, feasible solutions.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for these robustness checks. The revised case studies section now reports: (i) feasibility violation rates below 0.8% across all test days (measured as the fraction of solutions violating energy balance after rounding), (ii) out-of-distribution performance on a held-out winter period with 30% higher forecast error, where the end-to-end method still yields 6.2% improvement over predict-then-optimize, and (iii) sensitivity curves showing that the 7-9% operational gain and ~10% cost reduction from waste-heat recovery remain stable for forecast error magnitudes up to 25%. These metrics are presented in new Tables IV-V and Figure 8. The core claims are therefore supported by explicit feasibility and sensitivity evidence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: end-to-end framework is a standard differentiable optimization setup with no self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper proposes integrating a prediction model with a constrained IES optimizer into a single training loop so that the forecaster is optimized for downstream operational cost rather than pure prediction error. No equations are provided in the abstract or described derivation that reduce the claimed 7-9% improvement to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The method is presented as a conventional end-to-end learning architecture (prediction loss plus operational cost via differentiable optimization layer or penalty), which is externally verifiable on real datasets and does not rely on any uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The central performance claims rest on empirical case studies rather than on any definitional identity or fitted-input renaming. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no equations, parameters, or explicit assumptions; ledger therefore contains no entries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1140 out tokens · 52400 ms · 2026-05-13T23:39:52.021351+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

integrates the training of prediction models ... with the constrained optimization of IES into a unified learning framework ... via KKT conditions and implicit function theorem
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Case studies ... 7-9% improvement ... waste heat recovery ... 10% total energy cost reduction

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Buildings – Energy System,

International Energy Agency, “Buildings – Energy System,” 2026. Oper- ational energy use of buildings represents about 30% of global final en- ergy consumption and this share increases when including upstream en- ergy. Available: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings#tracking

work page 2026
[2]

Energy efficiency predictions for data centres in 2023,

M. Law, “Energy efficiency predictions for data centres in 2023,” 2022. Discusses energy and water efficiency trends and regulatory pressures in the data centre industry. Available: https://datacentremagazine.com/ articles/efficiency-to-loom-large-for-data-centre-industry-in-2023

work page 2023
[3]

Energy and AI,

International Energy Agency, “Energy and AI,” tech. rep., 2025. Avail- able: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai

work page 2025
[4]

Achieving low carbon local energy communities in hot climates by exploiting networks synergies in multi energy systems,

G. Comodi, A. Bartolini, F. Carducci, B. Nagaranjan, and A. Romagnoli, “Achieving low carbon local energy communities in hot climates by exploiting networks synergies in multi energy systems,”Applied Energy, vol. 256, p. 113901, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

Optimal design and operation of a low carbon community based multi-energy systems considering ev integration,

J. Cao, C. Crozier, M. McCulloch, and Z. Fan, “Optimal design and operation of a low carbon community based multi-energy systems considering ev integration,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1217–1226, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Optimal multi-energy portfolio towards zero carbon data center buildings in the presence of proactive demand response programs,

D. Xu, S. Xiang, Z. Bai, J. Wei, and M. Gao, “Optimal multi-energy portfolio towards zero carbon data center buildings in the presence of proactive demand response programs,”Applied Energy, vol. 350, p. 121806, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Optimal cost management of the cchp based data center with district heating and district cooling integration in the presence of different energy tariffs,

I. Keskin and G. Soykan, “Optimal cost management of the cchp based data center with district heating and district cooling integration in the presence of different energy tariffs,”Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 254, p. 115211, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Optimal coordination of hydrogen-based integrated energy systems with combination of hydro- gen and water storage,

X. Dong, J. Wu, Z. Xu, K. Liu, and X. Guan, “Optimal coordination of hydrogen-based integrated energy systems with combination of hydro- gen and water storage,”Applied energy, vol. 308, p. 118274, 2022

work page 2022
[9]

Optimal planning of distributed hydrogen-based multi-energy systems,

J. Liu, Z. Xu, J. Wu, K. Liu, and X. Guan, “Optimal planning of distributed hydrogen-based multi-energy systems,”Applied Energy, vol. 281, p. 116107, 2021

work page 2021
[10]

Multiple time-scale energy management strategy for a hydrogen-based multi-energy microgrid,

X. Fang, W. Dong, Y . Wang, and Q. Yang, “Multiple time-scale energy management strategy for a hydrogen-based multi-energy microgrid,” Applied Energy, vol. 328, p. 120195, 2022

work page 2022
[11]

Modeling a hydrogen- based sustainable multi-carrier energy system using a multi-objective optimization considering embedded joint chance constraints,

H. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Zhao, J. Yang,et al., “Modeling a hydrogen- based sustainable multi-carrier energy system using a multi-objective optimization considering embedded joint chance constraints,”Energy, vol. 278, p. 127643, 2023

work page 2023
[12]

Rep- resentation learning enhanced deep reinforcement learning for optimal operation of hydrogen-based multi-energy systems,

Z. Pu, Y . Yang, L. Yang, Q.-S. Jia, X. Guan, and C. J. Spanos, “Rep- resentation learning enhanced deep reinforcement learning for optimal operation of hydrogen-based multi-energy systems,” 2026. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00027

work page arXiv 2026
[13]

Experimental research and energy saving analysis of an integrated data center cooling and waste heat recovery system,

X. Chen, X. Wang, T. Ding, and Z. Li, “Experimental research and energy saving analysis of an integrated data center cooling and waste heat recovery system,”Applied Energy, vol. 352, p. 121875, 2023

work page 2023
[14]

Data centers waste heat recovery technologies: Review and evaluation,

Y . Hao, H. Zhou, T. Tian, W. Zhang, X. Zhou, Q. Shen, T. Wu, and J. Li, “Data centers waste heat recovery technologies: Review and evaluation,” Applied Energy, vol. 384, p. 125489, 2025

work page 2025
[15]

A review of optimization modeling and solution methods in renewable energy systems,

S. Yu, L. You, and S. Zhou, “A review of optimization modeling and solution methods in renewable energy systems,”Frontiers of Engineering Management, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 640–671, 2023

work page 2023
[16]

A review of optimization strategies for energy management in microgrids,

Author(s), “A review of optimization strategies for energy management in microgrids,”Energies, vol. 18, no. 13, p. 3245, 2023

work page 2023
[17]

Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization,

P. Donti, B. Amos, and J. Z. Kolter, “Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

work page 2017
[18]

Decision- focused learning without decision-making: Learning locally optimized decision losses,

S. Shah, K. Wang, B. Wilder, A. Perrault, and M. Tambe, “Decision- focused learning without decision-making: Learning locally optimized decision losses,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 1320–1332, 2022

work page 2022
[19]

Decision-focused learning: Foundations, state of the art, benchmark and future opportunities,

J. Mandi, J. Kotary, S. Berden, M. Mulamba, V . Bucarey, T. Guns, and F. Fioretto, “Decision-focused learning: Foundations, state of the art, benchmark and future opportunities,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 80, pp. 1623–1701, 2024

work page 2024
[20]

Smart “predict, then optimize

A. N. Elmachtoub and P. Grigas, “Smart “predict, then optimize”,” Management Science, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 9–26, 2022

work page 2022
[21]

Implicitly defined layers in neural networks,

Q. Zhang, Y . Gu, M. Mateusz, M. Baktashmotlagh, and A. Eriks- son, “Implicitly defined layers in neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.01822, 2020. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.01822

work page arXiv 2003
[22]

Differentiable convex optimization layers,

A. Agrawal, B. Amos, S. Barratt, S. Boyd, S. Diamond, and J. Z. Kolter, “Differentiable convex optimization layers,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

work page 2019
[23]

Learning convex optimization control policies,

A. Agrawal, S. Barratt, S. Boyd, and B. Stellato, “Learning convex optimization control policies,” inLearning for Dynamics and Control, pp. 361–373, PMLR, 2020

work page 2020
[24]

Citylearn v2: Energy-flexible, resilient, occupant-centric, and carbon-aware manage- ment of grid-interactive communities,

K. Nweye, K. Kaspar, G. Buscemi, T. Fonseca, G. Pinto, D. Ghose, S. Duddukuru, P. Pratapa, H. Li, J. Mohammadi,et al., “Citylearn v2: Energy-flexible, resilient, occupant-centric, and carbon-aware manage- ment of grid-interactive communities,”Journal of Building Performance Simulation, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 17–38, 2025

work page 2025
[25]

Energy dataset of frontier supercomputer for waste heat recovery,

J. Sun, Z. Gao, D. Grant, K. Nawaz, P. Wang, C.-M. Yang, P. Boudreaux, S. Kowalski, and S. Huff, “Energy dataset of frontier supercomputer for waste heat recovery,”Scientific Data, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1077, 2024

work page 2024
[26]

Long short-term memory,

S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,”Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

work page 1997