arxiv: 2604.14410 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY· math.OC

Recognition: unknown

Integrated Investment and Policy Planning for Power Systems via Differentiable Scenario Generation

Robert Mieth

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

keywords power systemscapacity expansionscenario generationdifferentiable programmingpolicy planningdiffusion modelsgradient-based optimizationload modeling

0 comments

The pith

Differentiable scenario generation enables joint optimization of power system capacity and demand-shaping policies using gradients from generative models.

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

The paper develops a method to co-optimize power system investments and policies that change daily electricity load profiles. It does so by introducing differentiable scenario generation, which allows generative machine learning models to produce the consistent gradients needed for gradient-based optimization of the combined planning problem. This matters for a reader because traditional approaches treat investment decisions and load-shaping policies separately, often missing how one affects the operational value of the other. The authors formalize the requirements on the scenario generator and show that diffusion models satisfy them in a stylized generation and capacity expansion example.

Core claim

Generative machine learning models can be formalized as differentiable scenario generators that satisfy the mathematical conditions for computing consistent gradients with respect to the conditions defining daily electricity demand profiles, thereby enabling an efficient gradient-based solution technique for operation-aware power system planning models that integrate capacity investments with policy effects on load.

What carries the argument

Differentiable scenario generation, the formalization of generative models so that gradients can be computed with respect to input conditions that define demand profiles and then used inside a larger optimization problem.

If this is right

Capacity expansion models can now directly incorporate the operational consequences of policies that reshape load profiles.
Gradient-based solvers become applicable to problems that previously required separate scenario sampling and non-differentiable simulation.
Diffusion models can serve as drop-in scenario generators inside integrated planning frameworks.
Numerical feasibility is established for stylized systems, opening the route to larger instances.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same differentiable-scenario idea could be tested on actual grid-scale data to measure the gap between joint and sequential planning.
If gradients remain stable, the method might extend to other stochastic energy problems that rely on ML-generated scenarios.
A practical test would compare run times and solution quality against traditional two-stage stochastic programming on the same stylized case.

Load-bearing premise

The stylized generation and capacity expansion planning model is representative enough of real systems and the diffusion-based generator produces gradients that stay consistent and useful when embedded in the full optimization.

What would settle it

A direct numerical check on the stylized model showing whether joint optimization with the differentiable generator produces materially different capacity and policy decisions than a sequential approach that samples scenarios without gradients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14410 by Robert Mieth.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Simulated and generated scenarios for the same day (i.e., for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: One generated scenario for π = [0.5, 0.5, 0.1, 0.1] and the gradients corresponding to the components π EV adopt (black arrows) and π EV flex (blue arrows). The scenario gradient correctly reflects the simulated behavior that an increase of π EV adopt will increase peak demand while an increase of π EV flex will reduce peak demand and shift demand towards the night [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: One generated scenario for π = [0.1, 0.1, 0.5, 0.5] and the gradients corresponding to the components π HP adopt (black arrows) and π eff HP (blue arrows) alongside the temperature profile of that day (red dashed line). The scenario gradient correctly captures the simulated opposing impact of π HP adopt and π eff HP on the temperature dependency of the load [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results from solving the planning model in (11) via gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We formulate a method to co-optimize power system capacity planning decisions and policy investments that shape electricity load patterns. To this end, we leverage a gradient-based solution technique that enables the efficient solution of operation-aware planning models. To compute gradients with respect to the conditions that define daily electricity demand profiles, we introduce and formalize the concept of differentiable scenario generation and show that generative machine learning models satisfy the mathematical requirements needed to compute consistent gradients. We demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed approach through numerical experiments using a diffusion model-based scenario generator and a stylized generation and capacity expansion planning model.

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

The paper formalizes differentiable scenario generation to co-optimize power system capacity and load-shaping policy, but the stylized experiments leave gradient accuracy unverified.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work shows how to embed a generative model inside a gradient-based planner so that capacity decisions and policy investments that change demand can be optimized together rather than sequentially. They formalize what it takes for a scenario generator to support consistent gradients and demonstrate the setup with a diffusion model on a small stylized generation-plus-expansion problem. That formalization step is the genuinely new piece; prior literature on scenario generation or on capacity expansion does not appear to have tied the two together this way. The experiments confirm that the joint problem can be solved at small scale, which is useful as a proof of concept. The approach is clean in principle and the authors are explicit about the mathematical conditions the generative model must meet. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test: there is no reported check that the back-propagated gradients actually match the true sensitivity of the planning objective. No finite-difference comparison or adjoint consistency test is mentioned, and the model remains stylized, so it is still an open question whether the gradients stay numerically reliable once the problem grows or the data become more realistic. The paper is aimed at researchers who already work on integrated power-system planning and want to bring in modern generative models without breaking the optimization loop. A reader looking for a concrete way to move beyond sequential planning would get a workable starting point. It is coherent on its own terms and the idea is worth referee time even though the current evidence is limited to feasibility. I would send it out for review and ask specifically for gradient verification and at least one larger test case.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces and formalizes differentiable scenario generation as a technique to compute consistent gradients through generative ML models (specifically diffusion models) with respect to conditions defining electricity demand profiles. This enables a gradient-based co-optimization framework that jointly solves for power system capacity expansion decisions and policy investments shaping load patterns. Feasibility is demonstrated via numerical experiments on a stylized generation and capacity expansion planning model.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a novel bridge between generative ML and large-scale optimization in power systems, allowing policy decisions to be optimized with explicit awareness of their effects on operational scenarios. The formalization of differentiable scenario generation and the use of diffusion models for this purpose are strengths that could extend to other stochastic planning problems. Credit is due for identifying the mathematical requirements for gradient consistency in this setting.

major comments (2)

[Numerical Experiments] The numerical experiments section demonstrates feasibility at small scale but supplies no explicit verification (e.g., finite-difference checks, adjoint consistency, or gradient-norm comparisons) that back-propagated gradients from the diffusion-based scenario generator match the true sensitivity of the planning objective when embedded in the joint optimization. This verification is load-bearing for the claim that the gradients remain mathematically consistent and numerically useful.
[Numerical Experiments] The stylized generation and capacity expansion planning model is used to show the approach, but the manuscript does not quantify how representative it is of real-scale systems or test whether gradient consistency degrades with increased model complexity or scenario dimensionality.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states that generative models 'satisfy the mathematical requirements' but does not preview the specific requirements or any quantitative gradient-error metrics from the experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments below, providing clarifications and proposing revisions to strengthen the numerical validation of our approach.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Numerical Experiments] The numerical experiments section demonstrates feasibility at small scale but supplies no explicit verification (e.g., finite-difference checks, adjoint consistency, or gradient-norm comparisons) that back-propagated gradients from the diffusion-based scenario generator match the true sensitivity of the planning objective when embedded in the joint optimization. This verification is load-bearing for the claim that the gradients remain mathematically consistent and numerically useful.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important aspect. While the manuscript focuses on the formalization and feasibility demonstration, we acknowledge that explicit numerical verification of gradient consistency would strengthen the claims. In the revised manuscript, we will include finite-difference checks comparing the back-propagated gradients with numerical approximations for the stylized model. This will confirm the mathematical consistency in the numerical experiments. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical Experiments] The stylized generation and capacity expansion planning model is used to show the approach, but the manuscript does not quantify how representative it is of real-scale systems or test whether gradient consistency degrades with increased model complexity or scenario dimensionality.

Authors: The stylized model was chosen to clearly illustrate the co-optimization framework and isolate the effects of differentiable scenario generation without confounding factors from large-scale system complexities. We agree that discussing scalability is valuable. In the revision, we will add a discussion section on the potential challenges and extensions to larger systems, including references to how diffusion models scale and preliminary thoughts on gradient behavior in higher dimensions. However, full-scale experiments are beyond the scope of this initial work but represent a direction for future research. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: formalization and external model embedding are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper introduces and formalizes differentiable scenario generation as a distinct concept, then verifies that standard generative ML models (treated as external, pre-trained artifacts) meet the mathematical conditions for consistent gradients. This formalization step does not define the concept in terms of its own outputs or rename fitted parameters as predictions. The numerical experiments embed a diffusion model into a stylized planning problem to show feasibility; the gradient consistency claim rests on the external model's properties rather than reducing by construction to the paper's own fitted values or self-citations. No load-bearing self-citation chains, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work appear in the derivation. The approach is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that generative models can be made differentiable in a way that produces consistent gradients for an outer optimization problem; no free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Generative machine learning models can be differentiated to yield consistent gradients with respect to the conditions defining demand profiles.
Explicitly stated as the mathematical requirement that must be satisfied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5386 in / 1204 out tokens · 40259 ms · 2026-05-10T12:12:30.333952+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Distribution grids may be a barrier to residential electrification,

C. Crozier, K. Baker, K. J. Kircher,et al., “Distribution grids may be a barrier to residential electrification,”Cell Reports Sustainability, vol. 2, no. 11, 2025

2025
[2]

State-of-the-art generation expansion planning: A review,

N. E. Koltsaklis and A. S. Dagoumas, “State-of-the-art generation expansion planning: A review,”Applied energy, vol. 230, pp. 563–589, 2018

2018
[3]

Regulatory and policy instruments to promote decar- bonization in the energy sector,

S.-L. Penttinen, “Regulatory and policy instruments to promote decar- bonization in the energy sector,” inResearch Handbook on Climate Change Mitigation Law, pp. 338–362, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022

2022
[4]

Quantifying the challenge of reaching a 100% renewable energy power system for the united states,

W. J. Cole, D. Greer, P. Denholm, A. W. Frazier, S. Machen, T. Mai, N. Vincent, and S. F. Baldwin, “Quantifying the challenge of reaching a 100% renewable energy power system for the united states,”Joule, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1732–1748, 2021

2021
[5]

Mission net-zero america: The nation-building path to a prosperous, net-zero emissions economy,

J. D. Jenkins, E. N. Mayfield, E. D. Larson, S. W. Pacala, and C. Greig, “Mission net-zero america: The nation-building path to a prosperous, net-zero emissions economy,”Joule, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 2755–2761, 2021

2021
[6]

Electrification in the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors: a review of opportunities, barriers, and policies,

S. Nadel, “Electrification in the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors: a review of opportunities, barriers, and policies,”Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 158–168, 2019

2019
[7]

An evolutionary analysis on the effect of government policies on electric vehicle diffusion in complex network,

J. Li, J. Jiao, and Y . Tang, “An evolutionary analysis on the effect of government policies on electric vehicle diffusion in complex network,” Energy policy, vol. 129, pp. 1–12, 2019

2019
[8]

Electrification futures study: Scenarios of electric technology adoption and power consumption for the united states,

T. T. Mai, P. Jadun, J. S. Logan, C. A. McMillan, M. Muratori, D. C. Steinberg, L. J. Vimmerstedt, B. Haley, R. Jones, and B. Nelson, “Electrification futures study: Scenarios of electric technology adoption and power consumption for the united states,” tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2018

2018
[9]

EDGEi: A simulation test-bed for investigating the impacts of building and vehicle electrification on distribution grids,

P. Priyadarshan, E. Pergantis, C. Crozier, K. Baker, and K. Kircher, “EDGEi: A simulation test-bed for investigating the impacts of building and vehicle electrification on distribution grids,” inHawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-57), 2024

2024
[10]

The impact of energy-efficiency upgrades and other distributed energy resources on a residential neighborhood-scale electrification retrofit,

L. Earle, J. Maguire, P. Munankarmi, and D. Roberts, “The impact of energy-efficiency upgrades and other distributed energy resources on a residential neighborhood-scale electrification retrofit,”Applied Energy, vol. 329, p. 120256, 2023

2023
[11]

Active inference for energy control and planning in smart buildings and communities,

S. D. Nazemi, M. A. Jafari, and A. Matta, “Active inference for energy control and planning in smart buildings and communities,” in2025 IEEE 21st International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 2369–2375, IEEE, 2025

2025
[12]

Model-free renewable scenario generation using generative adversarial networks,

Y . Chen, Y . Wang, D. Kirschen, and B. Zhang, “Model-free renewable scenario generation using generative adversarial networks,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 3265–3275, 2018

2018
[13]

Operation-adversarial scenario generation,

Z. Liang, R. Mieth, and Y . Dvorkin, “Operation-adversarial scenario generation,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 212, p. 108451, 2022

2022
[14]

Energydiff: Universal time-series energy data generation using diffusion models,

N. Lin, P. Palensky, and P. P. Vergara, “Energydiff: Universal time-series energy data generation using diffusion models,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2025

2025
[15]

Synthetic customer load data: Ap- proaches, limitations, and the role of generative ai,

Electric Power Research Institute, “Synthetic customer load data: Ap- proaches, limitations, and the role of generative ai,” White Paper 3002034348, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Jan. 2026

2026
[16]

Gradient methods for bilevel electricity grid expansion planning,

A. Degleris, A. El Gamal, and R. Rajagopal, “Gradient methods for bilevel electricity grid expansion planning,”Available at SSRN 5169721, 2025

2025
[17]

Performa- tive prediction,

J. Perdomo, T. Zrnic, C. Mendler-D ¨unner, and M. Hardt, “Performa- tive prediction,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 7599–7609, PMLR, 2020

2020
[18]

Performative prediction: Past and future,

M. Hardt and C. Mendler-D ¨unner, “Performative prediction: Past and future,”Statistical Science, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 417–436, 2025

2025
[19]

Multi-agent performative prediction: From global stability and optimality to chaos,

G. Piliouras and F.-Y . Yu, “Multi-agent performative prediction: From global stability and optimality to chaos,” inProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pp. 1047–1074, 2023

2023
[20]

Stochastic op- timization for performative prediction,

C. Mendler-D ¨unner, J. Perdomo, T. Zrnic, and M. Hardt, “Stochastic op- timization for performative prediction,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 4929–4939, 2020

2020
[21]

Anticipating performativity by predicting from predictions,

C. Mendler-D ¨unner, F. Ding, and Y . Wang, “Anticipating performativity by predicting from predictions,”Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 35, pp. 31171–31185, 2022

2022
[22]

Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 136–145, PMLR, 2017

2017
[23]

Flexible dif- ferentiable optimization via model transformations,

M. Besanc ¸on, J. Dias Garcia, B. Legat, and A. Sharma, “Flexible dif- ferentiable optimization via model transformations,”INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 456–478, 2024

2024
[24]

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

2017
[25]

Closed formulas in local sensitivity analysis for some classes of linear and non-linear problems,

E. Castillo, A. Conejo, C. Castillo, and R. M ´ınguez, “Closed formulas in local sensitivity analysis for some classes of linear and non-linear problems,”Top, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 355–371, 2007

2007
[26]

Sensitivity analysis for parametric nonlinear programming: A tutorial.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15851, 2025

F. Pacaud, “Sensitivity analysis for parametric nonlinear programming: A tutorial,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15851, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Monte carlo gradient estimation in machine learning,

S. Mohamed, M. Rosca, M. Figurnov, and A. Mnih, “Monte carlo gradient estimation in machine learning,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 21, no. 132, pp. 1–62, 2020

2020
[28]

PJM Data Miner 2

PJM, “PJM Data Miner 2.” [Online] Available: https://dataminer2.pjm. com/list
[29]

Era5 hourly time-series data on single levels from 1940 to present

Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), “Era5 hourly time-series data on single levels from 1940 to present.” Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate Data Store (CDS), 2025

1940
[30]

A survey on diffusion models for time series and spatio-temporal data,

Y . Yang, M. Jin, H. Wen, C. Zhang, Y . Liang, L. Ma, Y . Wang, C. Liu, B. Yang, Z. Xu,et al., “A survey on diffusion models for time series and spatio-temporal data,”ACM Computing Surveys, 2024

2024
[31]

Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models

J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[32]

Prescribed robustness in optimal power flow,

R. Mieth and H. V . Poor, “Prescribed robustness in optimal power flow,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 235, p. 110704, 2024

2024
[33]

CASE5 Power flow data,

MATPOWER, “CASE5 Power flow data,” 2014

2014
[34]

Fashionable modelling with flux,

M. Innes, E. Saba, K. Fischer, D. Gandhi, M. C. Rudilosso, N. M. Joy, T. Karmali, A. Pal, and V . Shah, “Fashionable modelling with flux,” CoRR, vol. abs/1811.01457, 2018

work page arXiv 2018
[35]

Jump: A modeling language for mathematical optimization,

I. Dunning, J. Huchette, and M. Lubin, “Jump: A modeling language for mathematical optimization,”SIAM Review, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 295–320, 2017

2017
[36]

Flexible dif- ferentiable optimization via model transformations,

M. Besanc ¸on, J. Dias Garcia, B. Legat, and A. Sharma, “Flexible dif- ferentiable optimization via model transformations,”INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 456–478, 2023

2023