Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 35 references

The paper claims that distribution-network optimization can be recast as retrieve-and-refine: retrieve similar historical solutions via a joint embedding, refine them with diffusion, and warm-start the solver, yielding multi-fold speedups a

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:15 UTC pith:OCBPGKO3

load-bearing objection A novel retrieval-plus-diffusion warm-start system with solid in-distribution results, but the speedup claim is overstated and the 'zero-shot OOD' test is really combinatorial interpolation. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15809 v1 pith:OCBPGKO3 submitted 2026-07-17 eess.SY cs.SY

From Similarity to Feasibility: Diffusion-Refined Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Distribution Network Optimization

Yuxuan Chen , Haipeng Xie , Shuo Dai , Ruoyi Xu , Zhaohong Bie This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.SY
keywords retrieval-augmented generationdistribution network optimizationdiffusion modelsSDEditwarm-startzero-shot generalizationmulti-modal representation learningoptimal power flow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

GridRAG's central claim is that distribution-network optimization, under uncertain renewable and EV scenarios, can be solved by retrieving a similar historical solution and refining it into a high-quality warm-start rather than solving from scratch or retraining a model. The paper builds a joint embedding space for scenarios and optimal solutions, so retrieval tracks decision transferability instead of raw feature similarity, and uses a confidence-gated SDEdit-style diffusion module to pull retrieved solutions onto near-feasible manifolds. On three operational tasks across four IEEE test feeders, it reports average solution times under three seconds, a multi-fold speedup over commercial solvers and over retraining DNN/RL agents, with objective gaps around one to three percent for similar scenarios and near-optimal results after solver refinement on zero-shot out-of-distribution scenarios. A sympathetic reader would care because this points toward a general pattern for handling scenario explosion in engineering optimization: reuse a database of solved cases and repair them generatively, rather than predict the optimum directly.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the near-feasible-manifold hypothesis: even when a test scenario lies far outside all clusters in the scene space, its retrieved solution can still sit close to a feasible, near-optimal solution of the target, so the task of zero-shot optimization becomes entering the attraction basin of that manifold rather than predicting the unique optimum. GridRAG implements this by aligning scene and solution embeddings with contrastive learning, retrieving top-k candidates through fast recall and precise reranking, and running an SDEdit-style diffusion chain whose noise level is set by retrieval confidence; the refined solution is then handed to an exact solver as a warm st

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery has three parts. Grid2Vec is a pair of encoders, one scene-only and one scene-solution aligned, trained with InfoNCE contrastive loss to make retrieval reflect decision transferability. Hybrid Retrieval combines ANN-based fast recall with cross-attention precise reranking, outputting a confidence score that controls downstream adaptation. Similarity-Gated Adaptation uses an SDEdit-style diffusion module: it partially noises the retrieved solution, with maximum noise step set by retrieval confidence, and denoises it under physics-guided gradients, producing a warm-start close to the feasible manifold.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a solution retrieved from a finite database, even for a scenario far outside all known clusters, still lies close enough to a feasible near-optimal solution of the new scenario that the diffusion step can pull it into the optimum's attraction basin.

What would settle it

Remove the final exact-solver pass, take a large set of deliberately distant out-of-distribution scenarios, and count how often the diffusion-refined solution lies in the solver's attraction basin, defined as starting points from which the solver reaches its reported tolerance. If the valid-warm-start rate falls far below the 95% reported in the appendix, the near-feasible-manifold premise fails; a scenario with a new device type or reversed loading direction should be a particularly sharp test.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, online response to new DER and EV scenarios can drop from hundreds of seconds to a few seconds, roughly 300x faster than direct solving and 100x faster than retraining learning agents, while remaining within a few percent of optimality.
  • Zero-shot generalization becomes possible without retraining: a pre-built database plus frozen embeddings and denoiser can handle severe distribution shifts, as long as retrieval finds a near-feasible starting point.
  • Physical feasibility is enforced by the final exact solver pass, so constraint violations are eliminated rather than merely reduced, even under zero-shot conditions.
  • The retrieve-and-refine design is plug-and-play: different downstream solvers, generative backbones, or database update strategies can be swapped in without changing the retrieval logic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the paper leaves implicit is that database coverage is the real resource: if performance hinges on the near-feasible-manifold hypothesis, then actively selecting which scenarios to add to the database, for example by low retrieval confidence, should directly improve zero-shot behavior.
  • A natural testable extension is to measure the attraction-basin entry rate on a large zero-shot set by comparing solver iterations from refined versus random starts; this would turn the central hypothesis from a single case study into a statistically validated mechanism.
  • The same retrieve-and-refine pattern could transfer to other optimization domains with stored feasible solutions, such as building energy management, integrated energy systems, or unit commitment, whenever a joint embedding between scenarios and decisions can be learned.
  • The confidence gating suggests an abstention mechanism: when retrieval confidence is very low and the refined solution still fails to enter the basin, an operator would be alerted to add new database scenarios, making the framework self-aware about its coverage.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GridRAG, a retrieval-augmented framework for distribution network optimization. GridRAG embeds operating scenarios and optimal solutions in a joint representation space, retrieves similar historical scenario-solution pairs via a two-stage hybrid retrieval process, and refines the retrieved solution with an SDEdit-style diffusion module. The refined solution is used as a warm-start for an exact solver. The authors evaluate on three optimization tasks across four IEEE test feeders and report that GridRAG outperforms learning-based and model-based baselines in solution time and generalization, including a claimed multi-fold speedup and zero-shot out-of-distribution capability.

Significance. If the stated results hold, the idea of combining retrieval augmentation with diffusion-based refinement for distribution network optimization would be a novel and potentially useful contribution to the learning-to-optimize literature. The paper contains a broad multi-task, multi-topology benchmark and makes code publicly available, which are strengths. However, several load-bearing claims are not supported by the presented evidence: the abstract's multi-fold speedup claim is contradicted by the authors' own Table I for Task B under the zero-shot setting; the 'zero-shot' test is not a genuine distribution shift but a held-out label combination from the same dataset; and the interpretability metric used to support the central manifold hypothesis is circular. The core idea is interesting but needs substantial revision and additional validation before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Table I] The abstract claims 'a multi-fold speedup in solution time compared to existing learning-based and model-based baselines.' This is contradicted by Task B, Test Group 2 in Table I: GridRAG averages 15.33 s while the model-based solver averages 5.89 s, making GridRAG about 2.6x slower. A similar pattern appears in Task A, IEEE-13 (21.37 s vs 11.57 s). The claim needs to be qualified to the settings where it holds, or the experimental design needs to explain why warm-starting fails to beat direct solving in these cases.
  2. [Section V-A, V-C; Section IV-C] Test Group 2 is described as 'zero-shot' and 'severe out-of-distribution,' but it consists of label combinations excluded from training within the same DDRE-33 dataset, same feeder topologies, same DER models, and the same label ranges. This is interpolation in a combinatorial label space, not extrapolation to a new distribution. The central hypothesis in Section IV-C — that retrieved solutions lie on a near-feasible manifold of the target OOD scenario — is only supported by one case study (Fig. 5/7) and a self-referential basin metric. The authors should either test on genuinely different distributions (e.g., new topology, different DER control models, climate extremes) or weaken the OOD claim accordingly.
  3. [Appendix B, Table B1] The 'ground-truth basin of attraction' is defined as 'the maximum range within the same test cluster that triggers an effective warm-start.' Table B1 then reports that refined distributions are closer to this self-defined basin. This is circular: the basin is constructed from the same warm-start successes that the metric is used to explain. The confusion matrix in Fig. B1 is more direct evidence, but it only measures solver acceptance/acceleration, not near-optimality or physical near-feasibility of the refined solution. The authors should provide a metric that does not presuppose the conclusion.
  4. [Table I; Section V-B1] The main results table reports only point estimates, with no standard deviations, number of seeds, or number of test scenarios. The text states a 'statistically significant improvement (p<0.05)' based on Fig. 4, but without variance information the reader cannot verify this. Since the central claim is about time savings, the authors should report mean±std over multiple seeds and perform a proper statistical test with specified test-set sizes.
  5. [Section V-A; Appendix A-3] Task B is described as 'a continuous NLP problem,' but the formulation in Appendix A-3 contains binary tie-switch variables (Eq. A8) and is therefore mixed-integer. This inconsistency is important because it affects what is meant by 'solver' time and whether the Gurobi 1e-4 gap guarantee produces global optima used as ground truth. The authors should correct the task description and clarify the global optimality status of the database solutions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table III] Typo: 'tiem/s' should be 'time/s'.
  2. [Section V-A] Typo: 'Sepecificlly' should be 'Specifically'.
  3. [General] The code repository URL in the abstract (github.com) is different from the one in the conclusion (anonymous.4open.science). Please unify these references.
  4. [Table I] The table formatting is difficult to parse; for example, Task A, IEEE-13 row contains a run of values '10.32 / 21.37/ 89.28 3.37% 11.57 /' that is ambiguous. Use separate subcolumns or clearer headings per test group.
  5. [Eq. (12)] The training loss in Eq. (12) includes the guidance term Σg inside the epsilon residual, but Eqs. (9)-(11) define g as a gradient evaluated at μθ. The notation should be made consistent to avoid confusion about what exactly is being minimized.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Local circularity in the warm-start 'basin' metric; the central retrieval-diffusion result is otherwise empirically self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Appendix B, Table B1 note]
    "The ground-truth basin of attraction is empirically bounded by the maximum range within the same test cluster that triggers an effective warm-start."

    The 'ground-truth basin of attraction'—the object used to validate the diffusion mechanism—is defined as the range of solutions that trigger the very outcome the framework is designed to produce (an effective warm-start). Table B1 then reports low FID/correlation distances between diffusion-refined solution distributions and this basin as evidence that the refined solutions approach the optimal basin. Since the basin is constructed from solver acceptance/acceleration, reporting that refined distributions are close to it is essentially a distribution-distance restatement of the direct warm-start success criterion, not an independent characterization of an underlying optimization geometry. This circularity is local to the interpretability analysis; the main time/gap comparisons against basel

full rationale

The paper's central chain—Grid2Vec multimodal embedding, hybrid retrieval, confidence-gated SDEdit-style diffusion, and final solver warm-start—is a supervised, empirically evaluated pipeline rather than a formal derivation. The evaluation separates database scenarios and Test Group 1 from Test Group 2 by excluding label combinations, and the reported objective gaps are computed against Gurobi ground truth, while the speedup claims are measured against actual solver and baseline times. No equation or construction forces the predicted zero-shot solution to equal the training target; the 'near-feasible manifold' assumption is empirically tested rather than assumed by definition. Self-citations ([28], [30], [31]) provide the dataset and auxiliary metrics, but they are not used as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for independent evidence. The one concrete circularity is in Appendix B: the 'ground-truth basin of attraction' is defined by what triggers an effective warm-start, and then the same warm-start-triggering outcome is used as the reference for a similarity metric that allegedly explains the mechanism. This makes the interpretability evidence partially restate its own success criterion, but it does not compromise the central empirical claims. Because the circularity is local and not load-bearing for the main results, a score of 2 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the correctness of solver-generated ground truths, the validity of the DDRE-33 label-based OOD split, the availability of a sufficiently dense historical database, and the framework's key hypothesis that retrieved solutions remain near-feasible under distribution shift. The latter is asserted and illustrated post hoc rather than independently established; missing full formulations in Appendix A mean some modeling axioms cannot be checked.

free parameters (4)
  • Diffusion depth range t_min/t_max used in Eq. (13) = inference range normalized to [0.2, 0.6]; t_min/t_max not fully specified
    The SDEdit forward noise level is set from retrieval confidence c; the range controls how much of the retrieved solution is destroyed and must be regenerated. It is hand-set via validation and affects speed vs. accuracy.
  • k (number of retrieved scenarios) = k=2 for Test Group 1, k=1 for Test Group 2
    Appendix B reports per-test-group k selection based on achieved accuracy; this is a hyperparameter chosen on the test partitions.
  • K0 (fast-recall candidate set size) = not specified; text states values below 20 degrade accuracy
    The fast-recall stage uses HNSW with candidate set K0, but the actual value used in experiments is not reported.
  • Guidance scaling lambda and potentials phi_g, phi_p in Eqs. (9)-(12) = not specified
    The energy-guided denoising term requires a scaling factor and physical/objective potentials; these are free modeling choices that are not documented enough to reproduce.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The DistFlow/AC-OPF formulations used to generate ground-truth solutions correctly model the four IEEE test feeders.
    Appendix A gives only partial formulations; variable definitions are deferred to 'second-round revision'. All training labels and optimality gaps rely on these models.
  • domain assumption Gurobi with MIP gap tolerance 1e-4 returns globally optimal solutions for all database scenarios.
    Section V-A states the solver setting but no proof of global optimality, especially for mixed-integer tasks; the paper's ground-truth labels and final objective gaps depend on this.
  • domain assumption DDRE-33 label combinations define a meaningful scenario similarity/OOD partition; excluded combinations are severe OOD.
    Section V-A constructs Test Group 2 from excluded label combinations; the validity of this as a zero-shot test depends on labels capturing operational shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Retrieved solutions lie on a 'near-feasible manifold' of the target scenario even under OOD shifts, so SDEdit refinement can enter the optimum's attraction basin.
    Stated as 'a central hypothesis' in Section IV-C; only evidence is one case study and t-SNE visualization (Fig. 5/7) plus a self-defined basin metric (Appendix B). This is the framework's key premise.
  • domain assumption The conditional diffusion model and confidence gating (Eqs. (4) and (13)) accurately model p(M|S,c) despite finite training data.
    Section IV-C/C describes a Transformer denoiser with physical guidance; no convergence guarantee is given, and success is empirical.
  • domain assumption A warm-started solver converges to the same global optimum as cold start within the measured time budget.
    In Test Group 2 GridRAG objective gap is reported as '/' (optimal), relying on solver convergence from refined warm start in under the measured time.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14578 in / 20105 out tokens · 166668 ms · 2026-08-01T22:15:19.589493+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Rapidly shifting operational scenarios driven by uncertain Distributed Energy Resource (DER) profiles render conventional distribution network optimization methods either computationally expensive or poorly generalizable. This paper introduces GridRAG, a pioneering retrieval-augmented framework that transforms optimization into a ``retrieve-and-refine'' paradigm. GridRAG first embeds scenario features and optimal solutions into a joint representation space to ensure semantic consistency. Based on the hybrid semantic information, the similar historical scenarios are then retrieved from a pre-constructed database. Then an SDEdit-style diffusion module is integrated to refine retrieved solutions by modeling the conditional distribution over near-feasible manifolds. This process effectively pulls retrieved solutions into near-optimal attraction basins, providing a high-quality warm-start for the final solver. Validated on three optimization tasks across four standard topologies, GridRAG demonstrates superior cross-scenario generalization and a multi-fold speedup in solution time compared to existing learning-based and model-based baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/YuxuanCEE/GridRAG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15809 by Haipeng Xie, Ruoyi Xu, Shuo Dai, Yuxuan Chen, Zhaohong Bie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Traditional procedures require a customized model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overall framework of GridRAG. and perform prototype-based similarity matching for target￾domain inference, avoiding target-side fine-tuning for non￾intrusive load monitoring. Nevertheless, these meta-learning methods primarily reuse prior knowledge and offer limited genuine zero-shot generalization. Consequently, they struggle to guarantee robust inference under severe out-of-distribution shifts at tes… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Architecture of precise reranking module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time consumption of GridRAG* and KG to the range [0.2,0.6]. We optimize the training parameters of all baselines while keeping their model structure unchanged. Sepecificlly, for the KG baseline, we conduct knowledge graph encoded with network structure, training hyperparameters and DER scenarios [15], [16]. For Meta-L baseline, we strictly follow the model designs in [20], [21], where a lightweight 1D-CNN … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GridRAG’s workflow: case study on Task C, IEEE-33 bus system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time consumption in each stage of different methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-modal validation: zero-shot scenario distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Survey on ai and machine learning techniques for microgrid energy management systems,

    A. Joshi, S. Capezza, A. Alhaji, and M.-Y . Chow, “Survey on ai and machine learning techniques for microgrid energy management systems,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1513–1529, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Machine learning accelerated real-time model predictive control for power systems,

    R. R. Hossain and R. Kumar, “Machine learning accelerated real-time model predictive control for power systems,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 916–930, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Contingency filtering techniques for preventive security-constrained optimal power flow,

    F. Capitanescu, M. Glavic, D. Ernst, and L. Wehenkel, “Contingency filtering techniques for preventive security-constrained optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1690– 1697, 2007

    2007

  4. [4]

    Decomposed scopf for improving efficiency,

    Y . Li and J. D. McCalley, “Decomposed scopf for improving efficiency,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 494–495, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    Fast security-constrained optimal power flow through low-impact and redundancy screening,

    R. Weinhold and R. Mieth, “Fast security-constrained optimal power flow through low-impact and redundancy screening,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4574–4584, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Security constrained unit commitment using line outage distribution factors,

    D. A. Tejada-Arango, P. S ´anchez-Martın, and A. Ramos, “Security constrained unit commitment using line outage distribution factors,” IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 329–337, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Deepopf: A deep neural network approach for security-constrained dc optimal power flow,

    X. Pan, T. Zhao, M. Chen, and S. Zhang, “Deepopf: A deep neural network approach for security-constrained dc optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1725–1735, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Data-driven optimal power flow: A physics-informed machine learning approach,

    X. Lei, Z. Yang, J. Yu, J. Zhao, Q. Gao, and H. Yu, “Data-driven optimal power flow: A physics-informed machine learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 346–354, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Data-driven screen- ing of network constraints for unit commitment,

    S. Pineda, J. M. Morales, and A. Jim ´enez-Cordero, “Data-driven screen- ing of network constraints for unit commitment,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 3695–3705, 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    Applications of physics-informed neural net- works in power systems-a review,

    B. Huang and J. Wang, “Applications of physics-informed neural net- works in power systems-a review,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 572–588, 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Two- timescale voltage control in distribution grids using deep reinforcement learning,

    Q. Yang, G. Wang, A. Sadeghi, G. B. Giannakis, and J. Sun, “Two- timescale voltage control in distribution grids using deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 2313– 2323, 2019

    2019

  12. [12]

    Deep reinforcement learning based volt-var optimization in smart distribution systems,

    Y . Zhang, X. Wang, J. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Deep reinforcement learning based volt-var optimization in smart distribution systems,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 361–371, 2020

    2020

  13. [13]

    Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for voltage control with coordinated active and reactive power optimization,

    D. Hu, Z. Ye, Y . Gao, Z. Ye, Y . Peng, and N. Yu, “Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for voltage control with coordinated active and reactive power optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4873–4886, 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    Robust deep reinforcement learning for volt-var optimization in active distribution system under uncertainty,

    Z. Chen, S. Cai, and A. S. Meliopoulos, “Robust deep reinforcement learning for volt-var optimization in active distribution system under uncertainty,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Varying condition scopf based on deep learning and knowledge graph,

    S. Liu, Y . Guo, W. Tang, H. Sun, W. Huang, and J. Hou, “Varying condition scopf based on deep learning and knowledge graph,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3189–3200, 2022

    2022

  16. [16]

    A data-knowledge-hybrid-driven method for modeling reactive power- voltage response characteristics of renewable energy sources,

    C. Gao, Y . Guo, W. Tang, H. Sun, W. Huang, J. Hou, and K. Wang, “A data-knowledge-hybrid-driven method for modeling reactive power- voltage response characteristics of renewable energy sources,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 3361–3373, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    A meta-learning based distribution system load forecasting model selection framework,

    Y . Li, S. Zhang, R. Hu, and N. Lu, “A meta-learning based distribution system load forecasting model selection framework,”Applied Energy, vol. 294, p. 116991, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    Meta-ann–a dynamic artificial neural network refined by meta-learning for short-term load forecasting,

    X. Xiao, H. Mo, Y . Zhang, and G. Shan, “Meta-ann–a dynamic artificial neural network refined by meta-learning for short-term load forecasting,” energy, vol. 246, p. 123418, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    Short-term load forecasting of distribution transformer supply zones based on federated model-agnostic meta learning,

    C. Feng, L. Shao, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, and F. Wen, “Short-term load forecasting of distribution transformer supply zones based on federated model-agnostic meta learning,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 31–45, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Load recognition with few-shot transfer learning based on meta-learning and relational network in non- intrusive load monitoring,

    D. Ding, J. Li, H. Wang, and K. Wang, “Load recognition with few-shot transfer learning based on meta-learning and relational network in non- intrusive load monitoring,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 4861–4876, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    A generalizable method for practical non-intrusive load monitoring via metric-based meta-learning,

    Q. Luo, T. Yu, C. Lan, Y . Huang, Z. Wang, and Z. Pan, “A generalizable method for practical non-intrusive load monitoring via metric-based meta-learning,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1103–1115, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschelet al., “Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  23. [23]

    Remodiffuse: Retrieval-augmented motion diffusion model,

    M. Zhang, X. Guo, L. Pan, Z. Cai, F. Hong, H. Li, L. Yang, and Z. Liu, “Remodiffuse: Retrieval-augmented motion diffusion model,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 364–373

    2023

  24. [24]

    Re-imagen: Retrieval- augmented text-to-image generator,

    W. Chen, H. Hu, C. Saharia, and W. W. Cohen, “Re-imagen: Retrieval- augmented text-to-image generator,” inThe Eleventh International Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    An overview of diffusion mod- els: Applications, guided generation, statistical rates and optimization,

    M. Chen, S. Mei, J. Fan, and M. Wang, “An overview of diffusion mod- els: Applications, guided generation, statistical rates and optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07771, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    Diffusion-based generation, optimization, and planning in 3d scenes,

    S. Huang, Z. Wang, P. Li, B. Jia, T. Liu, Y . Zhu, W. Liang, and S.-C. Zhu, “Diffusion-based generation, optimization, and planning in 3d scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 16 750–16 761

    2023

  28. [28]

    A large-scale dataset of distributed renewable energy scenarios on the ieee-33 bus network,

    Y . Chen, H. Xie, W. Huang, and P. Li, “A large-scale dataset of distributed renewable energy scenarios on the ieee-33 bus network,” Scientific Data, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    An open tool for creating battery-electric vehicle time series from empirical data, emobpy,

    C. Gaete-Morales, H. Kramer, W.-P. Schill, and A. Zerrahn, “An open tool for creating battery-electric vehicle time series from empirical data, emobpy,”Scientific data, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 152, 2021

    2021

  30. [30]

    Chime: Conditional hallucination and integrated multi-scale enhancement for time series diffusion model,

    Y . Chen and H. Xie, “Chime: Conditional hallucination and integrated multi-scale enhancement for time series diffusion model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03502, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Egbad: Ensemble graph- boosted anomaly detection for user-level multi-energy load data,

    Y . Chen, S. Dai, R. Xu, H. Xie, and Y . Zhang, “Egbad: Ensemble graph- boosted anomaly detection for user-level multi-energy load data,”Energy and AI, p. 100627, 2025. APPENDIX A. Optimization Problem Formulations Due to space limitations, a complete variable nomenclature table will be provided in the second-round revision

    2025

  32. [32]

    Network topology and DER placement We evaluate GridRAG on four IEEE radial test feeders and set DER location following [14], [28] as shown in Table A1: TABLE A1: DER placement across test systems Device IEEE-13 IEEE-33 IEEE-69 IEEE-123 PV 634, 580, 684 18, 33 27, 50, 62 32, 50, 83, 88, 110 WT / 22, 25 18, 65 41, 57, 71 ESS 671 10, 23, 31 12, 50 50, 88 EVs...

  33. [33]

    Task A — Volt-V AR Control Task A addresses the distribution VVC problem. The objec- tive minimizes network loss with a voltage-violation penalty: min X t∈T X (i,j)∈L rij ℓij,t +µ X t,j ξ+ j,t +ξ − j,t (A1) subject to (main constraints): XT−2 t=0 ϕt ≤ A oltc , XT−2 t=0 δsc t,b ≤ A sc (A2) Qsc t,b =n sc t,b ·q step,0≤n sc t,b ≤¯nsc (A3) Qpv t,i 2 ≤ ¯Spv i ...

  34. [34]

    Task B — Economic Dispatch Task B focuses on cost-driven economic operation, co- optimizing grid power purchase, ESS charge-discharge, PV curtailment, and network reconfiguration via tie-switch oper- ations. The daily operating cost is: minP t h Cet Pg t +CsP m Pcht,m+Pdist,m +CcutP i Pcutt,i i ∆t+CwP t,mδswt,m (A5) subject to (main constraints): Et,m =E ...

  35. [35]

    Task C — Active/Reactive Coordinated Optimization Task C integrates all devices from Tasks A and B and additionally incorporating EV charging stations with demand- side flexibility. The objective extends (A5) with voltage and EV penalties: min(A5)+µ X ξ+ j,t +ξ − j,t + Φev (A9) with the following EV-specific constraints: P ev t,m = ˆP ev t,m (1−ρ t,m)ρ t,...