Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 132 references

Security-Constrained Operation of IBR-Dominated Power Systems: Static and Dynamic Security Across Preventive and Corrective Decisions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that all security-constrained operation of inverter-based power systems can be organized by a two-axis taxonomy—static versus dynamic security and preventive versus corrective decision timing—and that a generic…

desk verdict Useful organizing review with a real internal inconsistency in the preventive/corrective axis that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12609 v1 pith:5OVOYXLF submitted 2026-08-12 eess.SY cs.SY

Buxin She This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords security-constrainedoperationinverter-basedresourcespreventiveschedulingcorrectivecontroldynamicsecuritystaticIBRcapabilitypowersystemstability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that security-constrained operation of power systems built around inverter-based resources is best understood through a two-axis grid: security represented as static equilibrium versus dynamic trajectory, and decisions timed as preventive (fixed before a contingency) versus corrective (chosen after the contingency is known). A generic optimization formulation places every reviewed method in one of the four cells and makes the coupling between the preventive schedule and the corrective action explicit. The literature surveyed yields two findings. First, within a single formulation, IBR capability can widen the feasible set or relax a security constraint, lowering cost or improving security. Second, across coupled formulations, the same device capability and limits are shared, so a benefit that looks real in isolation can vanish when the automatic response and later corrective action draw on the same limited resource. The paper therefore matters because it gives researchers and operators a common language for asking whether a scheduled IBR response will actually be deliverable when it is needed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generic preventive–corrective optimization (1)–(3) together with the two-axis taxonomy. The schedule $\vartheta$ is the coupling variable: it fixes the pre-contingency operating point, sets the post-contingency initial condition through $\Gamma_c(\vartheta)$, determines the preconfigured automatic response $\mu_c$, and bounds the corrective action through $\mathcal{A}_c(\vartheta)$. Static security is encoded by the equilibrium set $\mathcal{S}^{\mathrm{stat}}_c$, dynamic security by the DAE initial-value problem (5) with constraint map $\Phi_c(z_c(\cdot))\le 0$. This formulation does the work of showing that every quadrant in the 2x2 grid is a special case—static/dynamic times preventive/corrective—and that the shared device limits carried by $\vartheta$ and $\mathcal{A}_c$ are what decide whether an IBR capability credited in one formulation remains available in another.

What would settle it

Run a systematic, reproducible literature search covering the same scope with explicit inclusion criteria. If it surfaces a substantial published class of security-constrained IBR scheduling or corrective-control methods that cannot be placed in the four quadrants or represented through the generic formulation, the taxonomy would not organize the field as claimed. Alternatively, a concrete counterexample—a coupled preventive–corrective formulation with shared device limits whose joint feasible set strictly contains the union of the isolated feasible sets—would falsify the generalization that shared limits make isolated feasibility insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two-axis taxonomy and the generic preventive–corrective formulation (1)–(3) adequately represent the state of the art and expose a cross-formulation trap. In the formulation, the preventive vector $\vartheta$ is common to all contingencies; after contingency $c$ the corrective action $\pi_c$ must lie in a feasible set $\mathcal{A}_c(\vartheta)$ that depends on the schedule, while the pair must satisfy a security set $\mathcal{S}_c$. Static security uses post-contingency equilibrium equations, dynamic security uses differential-algebraic equations for the trajectory plus path constraints. The authors read the surveyed literature as showing that static preventive scheduling is extending into dynamic preventive scheduling—frequency, system strength, small-signal, voltage, and transient-stability constraints—and that corrective operation extends from equilibrium redispatch to trajectory-based control such as model predictive control. The two synthesized findings are: within one formulation IBR capability can expand the feasible set or relieve constraints; but when preventive configuration, automatic response, and corrective action share power and energy limits, feasibility in isolation does not imply feasibility of the coupled system, so the credited response must be validated as operationally deliverable.

Load-bearing premise

The entire synthesis rests on the assumption that the papers reviewed are a representative sample of the field and that the generic formulation (1)–(3) can faithfully capture every corrective or dynamic-security method; the paper does not document a systematic search or inclusion protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing or future scheduling or corrective-control method can be placed in one of the four cells, making its security claim explicit: equilibrium feasibility only, or trajectory-level security.
  • Dynamic preventive scheduling will keep absorbing frequency, system-strength, small-signal, voltage, and transient-stability constraints through reduced-order or surrogate models, with validity limited to the validated operating range.
  • Static corrective formulations certify only the end equilibrium, not the transition; secure operation in IBR-dominated grids therefore pushes toward trajectory-based corrective control or explicit delivery checks.
  • Joint scheduling that enforces consistent operating points and shared power/energy limits will avoid crediting the same IBR capability twice, and anticipating corrective capability can reduce preventive margins only when that deliverability is verified.
  • The three research needs the paper identifies—capability characterization and quantification, joint scheduling, and scalable verifiable solution frameworks—become the concrete agenda for making IBR support market-usable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-axis taxonomy is right, it suggests a standard reporting format for any security-constrained IBR scheduling study: state the quadrant, the security criterion, the information available at decision time, and the residual capability after automatic response; this would make results comparable across papers.
  • The double-counting warning implies a testable empirical prediction: adding a rigorous shared-limits audit to published preventive–corrective schedules will shrink the reported cost savings or security margin in a measurable fraction of cases, especially when the same storage or converter serves frequency, voltage, and redispatch.
  • The framework appears to generalize beyond transmission grids to distribution-level microgrid operation, where shared converter limits and mode switching are even tighter, though the paper does not develop that extension.
  • A natural next step the paper leaves implicit is a formal deliverability certificate: a condition on $(\vartheta, \mu_c, \pi_c)$ guaranteeing that the credited response can actuate within the response-time window; such a certificate would turn the qualitative warning into an enforceable constraint.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a two-axis taxonomy for security-constrained operation in IBR-dominated power systems: static versus dynamic security and preventive versus corrective decision timing. It presents a generic optimization formulation (Eqs. (1)-(3)) with static equilibrium constraints (Eq. (4)) and dynamic DAE-based security constraints (Eqs. (5)-(6)), and uses this framework to organize a review of preventive scheduling (SCUC/SCED/SCOPF, frequency- and stability-constrained scheduling) and corrective operation (static corrective SCOPF, RAS/emergency control, MPC, learning-assisted control). The review is synthesized into two findings: IBR capability can expand the feasible set or relieve security constraints within a formulation, and shared capability/constraints across preventive and corrective formulations determine whether that benefit remains operationally deliverable. The paper concludes with research directions on capability quantification, joint scheduling, and scalable solution frameworks.

Significance. If the taxonomy is made internally consistent, this paper fills a real gap by giving the security-constrained operation literature a common vocabulary and by flagging the double-counting risk when the same IBR capacity is credited in both preventive and corrective formulations; this second point is the most valuable contribution and is supported by the cited examples. The generic formulation is a useful template, and the bibliography is broad and current. The paper does not provide computational experiments, code, or quantitative predictions; its contribution is conceptual and organizational. Once the internal inconsistencies identified below are resolved, the taxonomy could serve as a useful reference for researchers and reviewers working on IBR-dominated security-constrained operation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.A, §IV.B.1, Table IV] The preventive–corrective axis is defined in two incompatible ways. Section II.A defines a corrective decision as one selected using post-event information, with fixed RAS logic classified as preventive. Section IV.B.1 states that 'Response logic fixed before the event remains a preconfigured automatic response, even when measured conditions activate different predefined branches [12], [27]' and that 'A corrective decision occurs when online optimization selects an action beyond that preconfigured logic.' Under the narrow §IV.B.1 criterion, the decision-tree corrective controller of [12] is an automatic response, yet Table IV lists 'Post-event supervisory action selection' with [12], [27] as dynamic corrective. The same ambiguity affects §IV.A.1, where a 'pre-computed' contingency-indexed action is called static corrective even though its logic is fixed before the event. Because the preventive/corrective timing axis is one of the two axes of the central taxonomy, this inconsistency undermines the paper's claim that the grid can be used to place any existing method. Please adopt one operational criterion—for example, whether an online optimization is solved using post-event measurements—and re-classify [12], [27], and precomputed corrective actions consistently across Sections II, IV, and Table IV.
  2. [§I and §V (findings)] The paper states that 'the surveyed work yields two findings' and presents them as general results of the literature, but it does not state the scope of the survey: no search databases, inclusion criteria, time window, or screening protocol are given. The two findings, especially the second one about shared capability and constraints across formulations, are empirical generalizations about a literature that could contain counterexamples. I am not asking for a formal systematic review, but the authors should either add a short methods/scoping paragraph describing how references were selected, or qualify the findings as observations from a curated representative sample. Without this, the reader cannot assess the generality of the central claims.
  3. [§II.B, Eqs. (1)–(6)] The generic formulation is asserted to 'represent' the four quadrants, but it is never instantiated on any of the reviewed models. For example, it is not shown how the RoCoF/nadir constraints of §III.B.1 map to Φ_c in Eq. (6), nor how the receding-horizon MPC of §IV.B.2 maps to π_c and A_c(ϑ), particularly when π_c is both a corrective action vector and, in Eq. (5), an input to a DAE over an interval. Without at least one concrete instantiation per quadrant, the claim that Eqs. (1)–(3) unify the field remains an assertion. Please add a table or a worked example mapping representative static/dynamic, preventive/corrective formulations onto S_c, A_c, and Φ_c.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (5)] The DAE is written with the zero on the left ('0=F_c(...)'); standard notation would be 'F_c(...)=0'. Also, π_c appears as a parameter in the DAE but is elsewhere called a 'policy'; please clarify whether π_c is a finite-dimensional action or a mapping from measurements to actions.
  2. [References [2] and [101]] References [2] and [101] appear to be duplicate entries for the same paper (both are titled 'Real-time contingency analysis with corrective transmission switching' and share the same journal and page numbers); please merge them or differentiate the versions.
  3. [Figure 1] The text says 'The solid box marks the focus of this review,' but the box is not identifiable in the current rendering of Figure 1; adding a label or a clearer border would help readers follow the scoping statement.
  4. [§IV.C.2] The discussion says the feasible action set for online corrective optimization 'must be updated from the actual IBR operating point,' but the definition of A_c(ϑ) in Eq. (3) only makes it a function of ϑ. Please state explicitly whether A_c can also depend on the realized post-event state z_c.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the taxonomy and generic formulation are organizational, and self-citations are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a survey and taxonomy rather than a derivation of new quantitative results, so the principal circularity patterns do not arise. The generic formulation in Eqs. (1)-(6) is explicitly presented as a compact deterministic equivalent of the classical security-constrained formulation, citing standard SCOPF/SCUC references; it is not fitted to any data and does not define its variables in terms of the conclusions it draws. The two stated findings are qualitative syntheses of the surveyed literature, not predictions obtained from the formulation, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction structure. The author's own prior works are cited as concrete examples of virtual inertia scheduling, dynamics-incorporated scheduling, inverter PQ control, and learning-based control, but these citations are illustrative and are not used as an external authority to force a choice or to justify the taxonomy's uniqueness. Even where the paper relies on its own prior results, those results are peer-reviewed with stated models and are not the load-bearing justification for the two-axis framework or the generic formulation. The reader's identified weakness, that the literature selection is curated rather than systematic, is a methodological representativeness concern, not a circularity concern, and the skeptic's observation about the preventive-corrective boundary is an internal consistency question rather than a reduction of a claimed result to its inputs. No equation, definition, or citation chain in the manuscript reduces a prediction or first-principles result to a fitted parameter or to an equivalent self-citation, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data and no new physical entities are postulated. The central claims rest on standard power system modeling conventions (DAEs, OPF feasibility sets) and on the paper's assumption that its two axes and generic formulation faithfully represent the surveyed literature.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four-quadrant taxonomy is exhaustive and the generic sets F0, Sc, Ac faithfully represent every reviewed formulation.
    The paper claims the framework links the four categories in Section II.B.3, but it provides no formal mapping from each reviewed method to a quadrant; if some methods mix or transcend these axes, the taxonomy overclaims coverage.
  • standard math The differential-algebraic system (5) is well-posed over [0,Tc] so that zc(t) exists and the dynamic-security constraints are well-defined.
    Section II.B.2 introduces Fc and zc via 0=Fc(t, dot zc, zc; ...) and the dynamic constraint vector without stating regularity, index, or solvability assumptions; this is a standard modeling assumption in the power systems literature.
  • domain assumption IBR controllability is the dominant new factor reshaping security-constrained operation.
    The entire paper is framed around IBR capabilities as the driver of static-dynamic and preventive-corrective coupling; other drivers such as market rules or regulatory changes are not considered as alternative explanations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Security-Constrained Operation of IBR-Dominated Power Systems: Static and Dynamic Security Across Preventive and Corrective Decisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OVOYXLF

@misc{pith2026260812609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Security-Constrained Operation of IBR-Dominated Power Systems: Static and Dynamic Security Across Preventive and Corrective Decisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OVOYXLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12609}
}
read the original abstract

Inverter-based resources (IBRs) couple power system operation to fast dynamics and controller-dependent responses. Their configurable capabilities are reshaping the formulation and coordination of security-constrained operation. This paper presents a two-axis view: static versus dynamic security and preventive versus corrective decision timing. Preventive scheduling is extending from static post-contingency feasibility toward dynamic security, while corrective operation spans equilibrium-based corrective actions and trajectory-based control. A generic formulation represents this change and makes the preventive--corrective tradeoff explicit. Existing formulations, methods, and capability representations are reviewed and synthesized within this framework. The surveyed work yields two findings. First, IBR capability can expand the feasible set or relieve security constraints, reducing operating cost or improving security performance. Second, shared capability and constraints across formulations determine whether that capability remains operationally deliverable. These findings motivate future research in IBR capability characterization and quantification, joint scheduling, and scalable solution frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Operational framework of IBR-dominated power systems. Solid arrows denote decision effects; dashed arrows denote information and feedback. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-axis taxonomy of security-constrained operation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Solution frameworks for coupling preventive scheduling with security [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: IBR capability and its effects on security-constrained operation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Decision tree-based preventive and corrective control applications for dynamic security enhancement in power systems,

    I. Genc, R. Diao, V . Vittal, S. Kolluri, and S. Mandal, “Decision tree-based preventive and corrective control applications for dynamic security enhancement in power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1611–1619, 2010

    2010

  2. [27]

    Preventive versus emergency control of power systems,

    L. Wehenkel and M. Pavella, “Preventive versus emergency control of power systems,” inProc. IEEE PES Power Systems Conf. Expo., vol. 3, 2004, pp. 1665–1670

    2004

  3. [2]

    Real-time contingency analysis with corrective transmission switching,

    X. Li, P. Balasubramanian, M. Sahraei-Ardakani, M. Abdi-Khorsand, K. W. Hedman, and R. Podmore, “Real-time contingency analysis with corrective transmission switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2604–2617, 2016

    2016

  4. [101]

    Real-time contingency analysis with corrective transmission switching,

    X. Li, P. Balasubramanian, M. Sahraei-Ardakani, M. Abdi-Khorsand, K. W. Hedman, and R. Podmore, “Real-time contingency analysis with corrective transmission switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2604–2617, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [1]

    Reliability standard TOP-002-5: Operations planning,

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Reliability standard TOP-002-5: Operations planning,” NERC, Tech. Rep., 2024, effective Oct. 1, 2025

    2024

  6. [3]

    Optimal load flow with steady-state security,

    O. Alsac and B. Stott, “Optimal load flow with steady-state security,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-93, no. 3, pp. 745–751, 1974

    1974

  7. [4]

    Security analysis and optimization,

    B. Stott, O. Alsac, and A. J. Monticelli, “Security analysis and optimization,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 1623– 1644, 1987

    1987

  8. [5]

    Security- constrained optimal power flow with post-contingency corrective rescheduling,

    A. J. Monticelli, M. V . F. Pereira, and S. Granville, “Security- constrained optimal power flow with post-contingency corrective rescheduling,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 175–180, 1987

    1987

Show all 132 references
  1. [6]

    A. J. Wood, B. F. Wollenberg, and G. B. Sheble,Power Generation, Operation, and Control, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2013

    2013

  2. [7]

    Security- constrained unit commitment for electricity market: Modeling, solution methods, and future challenges,

    Y . Chen, F. Pan, F. Qiu, A. Xavier, T. Zheng, M. Marwali, B. Knueven, Y . Guan, P. B. Luh, L. Wu, B. Yan, M. Bragin, H. Zhong, A. Gia- comoni, R. Baldick, B. Gisin, Q. Gu, R. Philbrick, and F. Li, “Security- constrained unit commitment for electricity market: Modeling, soluti...

    2023

  3. [8]

    Security- constrained unit commitment: Modeling, solutions and evaluations,

    M. A. Latify, A. Mokhtari, A. Alavi-Eshkaftaki, F. R. Najafabadi, S. N. Hashemian, A. Khaleghizadeh, H. Nezamabadi, M. Y . Ramandi, S. A. Mozdawar, N. D. Hatziargyriou, and S. H. Dolatabadi, “Security- constrained unit commitment: Modeling, solutions and evaluations,” Applied ...

    2025

  4. [9]

    Virtual inertia scheduling (VIS) for real-time economic dispatch of IBR-penetrated power systems,

    B. She, F. Li, H. Cui, J. Wang, Q. Zhang, and R. Bo, “Virtual inertia scheduling (VIS) for real-time economic dispatch of IBR-penetrated power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 938–951, 2024

    2024

  5. [10]

    Virtual inertia scheduling (VIS) for microgrids with static and dynamic security constraints,

    B. She, F. Li, J. Wang, H. Cui, X. Wang, and R. Bo, “Virtual inertia scheduling (VIS) for microgrids with static and dynamic security constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 785–796, 2025

    2025

  6. [11]

    Dynamics-incorporated modeling framework for stability-constrained scheduling under high penetration of renewable energy,

    J. Wang, F. Li, X. Fang, H. Cui, B. She, H. Shuai, Q. Zhang, and K. Tomsovic, “Dynamics-incorporated modeling framework for stability-constrained scheduling under high penetration of renewable energy,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1673–1685, 2025

    2025

  7. [13]

    Corrective model-predictive control in large electric power systems,

    J. A. Martin and I. A. Hiskens, “Corrective model-predictive control in large electric power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1651–1662, 2017

    2017

  8. [14]

    Founda- tions and challenges of low-inertia systems,

    F. Milano, F. D ¨orfler, G. Hug, D. J. Hill, and G. Verbi ˇc, “Founda- tions and challenges of low-inertia systems,” in2018 Power Systems Computation Conference, 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  9. [15]

    Inverter pq control with trajectory tracking capability for microgrids based on physics-informed reinforcement learning,

    B. She, F. Li, H. Cui, H. Shuai, O. Oboreh-Snapps, R. Bo, N. Praisuwanna, J. Wang, and L. M. Tolbert, “Inverter pq control with trajectory tracking capability for microgrids based on physics-informed reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. ...

    2023

  10. [16]

    Research roadmap on grid- forming inverters,

    Y . Lin, J. H. Eto, B. B. Johnson, J. D. Flicker, R. H. Lasseter, H. N. V . Pico, G.-S. Seo, B. J. Pierre, and A. Ellis, “Research roadmap on grid- forming inverters,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5D00-73476, 2020

    2020

  11. [17]

    Grid- forming converters: Control approaches, grid-synchronization, and fu- ture trends—a review,

    R. Rosso, X. Wang, M. Liserre, X. Lu, and S. Engelken, “Grid- forming converters: Control approaches, grid-synchronization, and fu- ture trends—a review,”IEEE Open Journal of Industry Applications, vol. 2, pp. 93–109, 2021

    2021

  12. [18]

    State-of-the-art, challenges, and future trends in security constrained optimal power flow,

    F. Capitanescu, J. M. Ramos, P. Panciatici, D. Kirschen, A. M. Marcolini, L. Platbrood, and L. Wehenkel, “State-of-the-art, challenges, and future trends in security constrained optimal power flow,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 81, no. 8, pp. 1731–1741, 2011

    2011

  13. [19]

    Critical review of recent advances and further devel- opments needed in AC optimal power flow,

    F. Capitanescu, “Critical review of recent advances and further devel- opments needed in AC optimal power flow,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 136, pp. 57–68, 2016

    2016

  14. [20]

    Recent developments in security-constrained AC optimal power flow: Overview of challenge 1 in the ARPA-E grid optimization competition,

    I. Aravena, D. K. Molzahn, S. Zhang, C. G. Petra, F. E. Curtis, S. Tu, A. Waechter, E. Wei, E. Wong, A. Gholami, K. Sun, X. A. Sun, S. Elbert, J. Holzer, and A. Veeramany, “Recent developments in security-constrained AC optimal power flow: Overview of challenge 1 in the ARPA-E...

    1997

  15. [21]

    Power system security assess- ment,

    K. Morison, L. Wang, and P. Kundur, “Power system security assess- ment,”IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 30–39, 2004

    2004

  16. [22]

    Definition and classification of power system stability – revisited and extended,

    N. Hatziargyriouet al., “Definition and classification of power system stability – revisited and extended,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 3271–3281, 2021

    2021

  17. [23]

    Review of data-driven techniques for on-line static and dynamic security assessment of modern power systems,

    F. De Caro, A. J. Collin, G. M. Giannuzzi, C. Pisani, and A. Vaccaro, “Review of data-driven techniques for on-line static and dynamic security assessment of modern power systems,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 130 644–130 673, 2023

    2023

  18. [24]

    Advances in transient stability- constrained optimal power flow of power systems,

    H. Zhang, Y . Xu, and Z. Y . Dong, “Advances in transient stability- constrained optimal power flow of power systems,”CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2776–2793, 2025

    2025

  19. [25]

    Definition and classification of power system stability,

    P. Kundur, J. Paserba, V . Ajjarapu, G. Andersson, A. Bose, C. Canizares, N. Hatziargyriou, D. Hill, A. Stankovic, C. Taylor, T. Van Cutsem, and V . Vittal, “Definition and classification of power system stability,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1387–1...

    2004

  20. [26]

    Electromagnetic transient analysis in operations planning for BPS-connected inverter- based resources,

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Electromagnetic transient analysis in operations planning for BPS-connected inverter- based resources,” NERC, Tech. Rep., Jun. 2025

    2025

  21. [28]

    “Remedial Action Scheme

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, ““Remedial Action Scheme” Definition Development: Background and Frequently Asked Questions,” NERC, Tech. Rep. Project 2010-05.2, Oct. 2014

    2010

  22. [29]

    Simultaneous scheduling of multiple frequency services in stochastic unit commitment,

    L. Badesa, F. Teng, and G. Strbac, “Simultaneous scheduling of multiple frequency services in stochastic unit commitment,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 3858–3868, 2019

    2019

  23. [30]

    Security-constrained unit commitment considering locational frequency stability in low-inertia power grids,

    M. Tuo and X. Li, “Security-constrained unit commitment considering locational frequency stability in low-inertia power grids,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 4134–4147, 2023

    2023

  24. [31]

    Multi-area frequency-constrained unit commitment for power systems with high penetration of renewable energy sources and induction machine load,

    L. Wang, H. Fan, J. Liang, L. Xu, T. Li, P. Luo, B. Hu, and K. Xie, “Multi-area frequency-constrained unit commitment for power systems with high penetration of renewable energy sources and induction machine load,”Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 12, no. ...

    2024

  25. [32]

    Frequency nadir constrained unit commitment for high renewable penetration island power systems,

    X. Liu, X. Fang, N. Gao, H. Yuan, A. Hoke, H. Wu, and J. Tan, “Frequency nadir constrained unit commitment for high renewable penetration island power systems,”IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy, vol. 11, pp. 141–153, 2024

    2024

  26. [33]

    Grid-forming inverters: Are they the key for high renewable penetration?

    J. Matevosyan, B. Badrzadeh, T. Pr ´evost, E. Quitmann, D. Ramasub- ramanian, H. Urdal, S. Achilles, J. MacDowell, S.-H. Huang, V . Vittal, J. O’Sullivan, and R. Quint, “Grid-forming inverters: Are they the key for high renewable penetration?”IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vo...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Security enablement procedures,

    Australian Energy Market Operator, “Security enablement procedures,” AEMO, Tech. Rep. Doc. Ref. SO OP 3720, Aug. 2025, version 2.0, effective Aug. 31, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    How many grid-forming converters are needed? – a techno-economic perspective,

    G. Cui, H. Jia, N. Zhang, and F. Teng, “How many grid-forming converters are needed? – a techno-economic perspective,”iEnergy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 79–85, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    A new iterative approach to the corrective security-constrained optimal power flow problem,

    F. Capitanescu and L. Wehenkel, “A new iterative approach to the corrective security-constrained optimal power flow problem,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1533–1541, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    Stability-constrained optimal power flow,

    D. Gan, R. J. Thomas, and R. D. Zimmerman, “Stability-constrained optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 535–540, 2000

    2000

  31. [39]

    Coupling optimiza- tion and dynamic simulation for preventive-corrective control of voltage instability,

    F. Capitanescu, T. Van Cutsem, and L. Wehenkel, “Coupling optimiza- tion and dynamic simulation for preventive-corrective control of voltage instability,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 796–805, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Tight mixed integer linear programming formulations for the unit commitment problem,

    J. Ostrowski, M. F. Anjos, and A. Vannelli, “Tight mixed integer linear programming formulations for the unit commitment problem,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39–46, 2012. PREPRINT 11

    2012

  33. [41]

    Tight and compact MILP formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,

    G. Morales-Espa ˜na, J. M. Latorre, and A. Ramos, “Tight and compact MILP formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4897–4908, 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Security-constrained unit com- mitment with AC constraints,

    Y . Fu, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. Li, “Security-constrained unit com- mitment with AC constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1001–1013, 2005

    2005

  35. [43]

    Van Cutsem and C

    T. Van Cutsem and C. V ournas,Voltage Stability of Electric Power Systems. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1998

    1998

  36. [44]

    Cpflow: A practical tool for tracing power system steady-state stationary behavior due to load and generation variations,

    H.-D. Chiang, A. J. Flueck, K. S. Shah, and N. Balu, “Cpflow: A practical tool for tracing power system steady-state stationary behavior due to load and generation variations,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 623–634, 1995

    1995

  37. [45]

    A decomposition algorithm with fast identification of critical contingencies for large-scale security-constrained AC optimal power flow,

    F. E. Curtis, D. K. Molzahn, S. Tu, A. Waechter, E. Wei, and E. Wong, “A decomposition algorithm with fast identification of critical contingencies for large-scale security-constrained AC optimal power flow,”Operations Research, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 2031–2044, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Security-constrained unit commitment with volatile wind power generation,

    J. Wang, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. Li, “Security-constrained unit commitment with volatile wind power generation,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1319–1327, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    Economic valuation of reserves in power systems with high penetration of wind power,

    J. M. Morales, A. J. Conejo, and J. P ´erez-Ruiz, “Economic valuation of reserves in power systems with high penetration of wind power,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 900–910, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Reserve requirements for wind power integration: A scenario-based stochastic programming framework,

    A. Papavasiliou, S. S. Oren, and R. P. O’Neill, “Reserve requirements for wind power integration: A scenario-based stochastic programming framework,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2197–2206, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Stochastic security for operations planning with significant wind power generation,

    F. Bouffard and F. D. Galiana, “Stochastic security for operations planning with significant wind power generation,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 306–316, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    J. M. Morales, A. J. Conejo, H. Madsen, P. Pinson, and M. Zugno, Integrating Renewables in Electricity Markets: Operational Problems. New York, NY , USA: Springer, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Optimal power flow with weighted chance constraints and general policies for genera- tion control,

    L. Roald, S. Misra, M. Chertkov, and G. Andersson, “Optimal power flow with weighted chance constraints and general policies for genera- tion control,” in2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2015, pp. 6927–6933

    2015

  44. [52]

    A robust approach to chance constrained optimal power flow with renewable generation,

    M. Lubin, Y . Dvorkin, and S. Backhaus, “A robust approach to chance constrained optimal power flow with renewable generation,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 3840–3849, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Robust unit commitment with wind power and pumped storage hydro,

    R. Jiang, J. Wang, and Y . Guan, “Robust unit commitment with wind power and pumped storage hydro,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 800–810, 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    Adaptive robust optimization for the security constrained unit commitment problem,

    D. Bertsimas, E. Litvinov, X. A. Sun, J. Zhao, and T. Zheng, “Adaptive robust optimization for the security constrained unit commitment problem,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 52–63, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    Revisit power system dispatch: Concepts, models, and solutions,

    Z. Yang, P. Yong, and M. Xiang, “Revisit power system dispatch: Concepts, models, and solutions,”iEnergy, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–62, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Enhanced security- constrained unit commitment with emerging utility-scale energy stor- age,

    Y . Wen, C. Guo, H. Pand ˇzi´c, and D. S. Kirschen, “Enhanced security- constrained unit commitment with emerging utility-scale energy stor- age,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 652–662, Jan. 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Control-mode as a grid service in software-defined power grids: GFL vs GFM,

    G. Cui, Z. Chu, and F. Teng, “Control-mode as a grid service in software-defined power grids: GFL vs GFM,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 314–326, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Convex relaxation of optimal power flow—part I: For- mulations and equivalence,

    S. H. Low, “Convex relaxation of optimal power flow—part I: For- mulations and equivalence,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15–27, 2014

    2014

  51. [59]

    The QC relaxation: A theoretical and computational study on optimal power flow,

    C. Coffrin, H. L. Hijazi, and P. V . Hentenryck, “The QC relaxation: A theoretical and computational study on optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 3008–3018, 2016

    2016

  52. [60]

    A survey of relaxations and approximations of the power flow equations,

    D. K. Molzahn and I. A. Hiskens, “A survey of relaxations and approximations of the power flow equations,”Foundations and Trends in Electric Energy Systems, vol. 4, no. 1–2, pp. 1–221, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    Identification of umbrella constraints in DC-based security-constrained optimal power flow,

    A. J. Ardakani and F. Bouffard, “Identification of umbrella constraints in DC-based security-constrained optimal power flow,”IEEE Transac- tions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 3924–3934, 2013

    2013

  55. [63]

    An exact and scalable problem decomposition for security-constrained optimal power flow,

    A. Velloso, P. V . Hentenryck, and E. S. Johnson, “An exact and scalable problem decomposition for security-constrained optimal power flow,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 195, p. 106677, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    An ADMM-based distributed optimization method for solving security-constrained alter- nating current optimal power flow,

    A. Gholami, K. Sun, S. Zhang, and X. A. Sun, “An ADMM-based distributed optimization method for solving security-constrained alter- nating current optimal power flow,”Operations Research, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 2045–2060, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    A surrogate-based asynchronous decom- position technique for realistic security-constrained optimal power flow problems,

    C. G. Petra and I. Aravena, “A surrogate-based asynchronous decom- position technique for realistic security-constrained optimal power flow problems,”Operations Research, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 2015–2030, 2023

    2015

  58. [66]

    On mixed-integer pro- gramming formulations for the unit commitment problem,

    B. Knueven, J. Ostrowski, and J.-P. Watson, “On mixed-integer pro- gramming formulations for the unit commitment problem,”INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 857–876, 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    A low-order system frequency response model,

    P. M. Anderson and M. Mirheydar, “A low-order system frequency response model,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 720–729, 1990

    1990

  60. [68]

    Stochastic scheduling with inertia- dependent fast frequency response requirements,

    F. Teng, V . Trovato, and G. Strbac, “Stochastic scheduling with inertia- dependent fast frequency response requirements,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1557–1566, 2016

    2016

  61. [69]

    Stochastic unit commitment in low-inertia grids,

    M. Paturet, U. Markovic, S. Delikaraoglou, E. Vrettos, P. Aristidou, and G. Hug, “Stochastic unit commitment in low-inertia grids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 3448–3458, 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    Data-driven frequency nadir constraint for unit commitment in power systems with high renewable penetration,

    Y . Shen, W. Wu, B. Wang, Y . Yang, and M. Li, “Data-driven frequency nadir constraint for unit commitment in power systems with high renewable penetration,”Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1711–1717, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    Connection of wind farms to weak AC networks,

    CIGRE Working Group B4.62, “Connection of wind farms to weak AC networks,” CIGRE, Tech. Rep. Technical Brochure 671, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    Generalized short circuit ratio for multi power electronic based devices infeed systems: Definition and theoretical analysis,

    H. Xin, W. Dong, D. Gan, D. Wu, and X. Yuan, “Generalized short circuit ratio for multi power electronic based devices infeed systems: Definition and theoretical analysis,” 2017, arXiv:1708.08046

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Integrating inverter- based resources into low short circuit strength systems,

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Integrating inverter- based resources into low short circuit strength systems,” NERC, Tech. Rep., 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    Strength-constrained unit commitment in IBR-dominant power systems,

    Y . K. Kim, S. H. Lee, and G. S. Lee, “Strength-constrained unit commitment in IBR-dominant power systems,”iEnergy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 121–131, 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    Optimal power flow with regression-based small-signal stability con- straints,

    F. Rossi, E. Prieto-Araujo, M. Cheah-Ma ˜n´e, and O. Gomis-Bellmunt, “Optimal power flow with regression-based small-signal stability con- straints,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 166 093–166 113, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Multi-stage convex polynomial regression for small-signal stability in power systems,

    K. Agrawal, K. Sch ¨onleber, M. Giuntoli, F. Rossi, E. Prieto-Araujo, and O. Gomis-Bellmunt, “Multi-stage convex polynomial regression for small-signal stability in power systems,” inIET Conference Pro- ceedings, vol. 2025, no. 45, 2025, pp. 926–933

    2025

  69. [77]

    White paper on transient voltage response criteria,

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “White paper on transient voltage response criteria,” NERC, Tech. Rep., Dec. 2022

    2022

  70. [78]

    Analytical method for short-term voltage stability using the stability boundary in the P–V plane,

    K. Kawabe and K. Tanaka, “Analytical method for short-term voltage stability using the stability boundary in the P–V plane,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3041–3047, 2014

    2014

  71. [79]

    Deep learning for short-term voltage stability assessment of power systems,

    M. Zhang, J. Li, Y . Li, and R. Xu, “Deep learning for short-term voltage stability assessment of power systems,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 29 711–29 718, 2021

    2021

  72. [80]

    Short-term voltage stability- constrained unit commitment for receiving-end grid with multi-infeed HVDCs,

    M. Jiang, Q. Guo, H. Sun, and H. Ge, “Short-term voltage stability- constrained unit commitment for receiving-end grid with multi-infeed HVDCs,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2603–2613, 2021

    2021

  73. [81]

    Selective transient stability-constrained optimal power flow using a SIME and trajectory sensitivity unified analysis,

    A. Pizano-Mart ´ınez, C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel, E. A. Zamora-C ´ardenas, and D. Ruiz-Vega, “Selective transient stability-constrained optimal power flow using a SIME and trajectory sensitivity unified analysis,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 109, pp. 32–44, 2014

    2014

  74. [82]

    Lyapunov functions family approach to transient stability assessment,

    T. L. Vu and K. Turitsyn, “Lyapunov functions family approach to transient stability assessment,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1269–1277, 2016

    2016

  75. [83]

    Electric vehicles charging time constrained deliverable provision of secondary frequency regulation,

    J. Wang, F. Li, X. Fang, W. Wang, H. Cui, Q. Zhang, and B. She, “Electric vehicles charging time constrained deliverable provision of secondary frequency regulation,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 3892–3903, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Unit commitment with primary fre- quency regulation constraints,

    J. F. Restrepo and F. D. Galiana, “Unit commitment with primary fre- quency regulation constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1836–1842, 2005

    2005

  77. [85]

    Optimal placement of virtual inertia in power grids,

    B. K. Poolla, S. Bolognani, and F. D ¨orfler, “Optimal placement of virtual inertia in power grids,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 6209–6220, 2017

    2017

  78. [86]

    Optimal portfolio of distinct frequency response services in low-inertia systems,

    L. Badesa, F. Teng, and G. Strbac, “Optimal portfolio of distinct frequency response services in low-inertia systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4459–4469, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    Control of power converters in AC microgrids,

    J. Rocabert, A. Luna, F. Blaabjerg, and P. Rodr´ıguez, “Control of power converters in AC microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 4734–4749, 2012. PREPRINT 12

    2012

  80. [88]

    Grid-forming technology in en- ergy systems integration,

    Energy Systems Integration Group, “Grid-forming technology in en- ergy systems integration,” Energy Systems Integration Group, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  81. [89]

    System strength impact assess- ment guidelines,

    Australian Energy Market Operator, “System strength impact assess- ment guidelines,” AEMO, Tech. Rep., 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Inertia requirements methodology,

    ——, “Inertia requirements methodology,” AEMO, Tech. Rep., 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Power system security guidelines,

    ——, “Power system security guidelines,” AEMO, Tech. Rep. Doc. Ref. SO OP 3715, Jul. 2026, version 107, effective Jul. 20, 2026

    2026

  84. [92]

    Fast transient stability solutions,

    H. W. Dommel and N. Sato, “Fast transient stability solutions,”IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-91, no. 4, pp. 1643–1650, 1972

    1972

  85. [93]

    A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis,

    A. R. Bergen and D. J. Hill, “A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-100, no. 1, pp. 25–35, 1981

    1981

  86. [94]

    Pavella, D

    M. Pavella, D. Ernst, and D. Ruiz-Vega,Transient Stability of Power Systems: A Unified Approach to Assessment and Control. Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000

    2000

  87. [95]

    Chiang,Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems: Theoretical Foundation, BCU Methodologies, and Applica- tions

    H.-D. Chiang,Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems: Theoretical Foundation, BCU Methodologies, and Applica- tions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-IEEE Press, 2011

    2011

  88. [96]

    Some efficient optimization methods for solving the security-constrained optimal power flow problem,

    D. Phan and J. Kalagnanam, “Some efficient optimization methods for solving the security-constrained optimal power flow problem,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 863–872, 2014

    2014

  89. [97]

    AC contingency dispatch based on security-constrained unit commitment,

    Y . Fu, M. Shahidehpour, and Z. Li, “AC contingency dispatch based on security-constrained unit commitment,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 897–908, May 2006

    2006

  90. [98]

    Contingency- constrained unit commitment with post-contingency corrective re- course,

    R. L.-Y . Chen, N. Fan, A. Pinar, and J.-P. Watson, “Contingency- constrained unit commitment with post-contingency corrective re- course,”Annals of Operations Research, vol. 249, pp. 381–407, 2017

    2017

  91. [99]

    Minimal impact corrective actions in security-constrained optimal power flow via sparsity regularization,

    D. T. Phan and X. A. Sun, “Minimal impact corrective actions in security-constrained optimal power flow via sparsity regularization,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1947–1956, 2015

    1947

  92. [100]

    Envisioning security control in renewable-dominated power systems through stochastic multi-period AC security-constrained optimal power flow,

    M. I. Alizadeh, M. Usman, and F. Capitanescu, “Envisioning security control in renewable-dominated power systems through stochastic multi-period AC security-constrained optimal power flow,”Interna- tional Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 139, p. 107992, 2022

    2022

  93. [102]

    Solving preventive-corrective SCOPF by a hybrid computational strategy,

    Y . Xu, Z. Y . Dong, R. Zhang, K. P. Wong, and M. Lai, “Solving preventive-corrective SCOPF by a hybrid computational strategy,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1345–1355, 2014

    2014

  94. [103]

    A contingency partitioning approach for preventive-corrective security- constrained optimal power flow computation,

    Y . Xu, H. Yang, R. Zhang, Z. Y . Dong, M. Lai, and K. P. Wong, “A contingency partitioning approach for preventive-corrective security- constrained optimal power flow computation,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 132, pp. 132–140, 2016

    2016

  95. [104]

    Flexible security-constrained optimal power flow,

    J. J. Thomas and S. Grijalva, “Flexible security-constrained optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1195–1202, 2015

    2015

  96. [105]

    A tractable linearization-based approximated solution methodology to stochastic multi-period AC security-constrained optimal power flow,

    M. I. Alizadeh and F. Capitanescu, “A tractable linearization-based approximated solution methodology to stochastic multi-period AC security-constrained optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5896–5908, 2023

    2023

  97. [106]

    On the robustness of machine-learnt proxies for security-constrained optimal power flow,

    N. Popli, E. Davoodi, F. Capitanescu, and L. Wehenkel, “On the robustness of machine-learnt proxies for security-constrained optimal power flow,”Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, vol. 37, p. 101265, 2024

    2024

  98. [107]

    Discussion on “solving preventive-corrective SCOPF by a hybrid computational strategy

    Y . Wen and C. Guo, “Discussion on “solving preventive-corrective SCOPF by a hybrid computational strategy”,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3124–3124, 2014

    2014

  99. [108]

    Closure to discussion on “solving preventive-corrective SCOPF by a hybrid com- putational strategy

    Y . Xu, Z. Y . Dong, R. Zhang, K. P. Wong, and M. Lai, “Closure to discussion on “solving preventive-corrective SCOPF by a hybrid com- putational strategy”,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3124–3125, 2014

    2014

  100. [109]

    Real-time prediction and control of transient stability using transient energy function,

    P. Bhui and N. Senroy, “Real-time prediction and control of transient stability using transient energy function,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 923–934, 2017

    2017

  101. [110]

    Kundur,Power System Stability and Control

    P. Kundur,Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY , USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994

    1994

  102. [111]

    Coordinated system protection scheme against voltage collapse using heuristic search and predictive control,

    M. Larsson and D. Karlsson, “Coordinated system protection scheme against voltage collapse using heuristic search and predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1001–1006, 2003

    2003

  103. [112]

    Model-predictive cascade mitigation in electric power systems with storage and renewables—part i: Theory and implementation,

    M. R. Almassalkhi and I. A. Hiskens, “Model-predictive cascade mitigation in electric power systems with storage and renewables—part i: Theory and implementation,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 67–77, Jan. 2015

    2015

  104. [113]

    Frequency stability using MPC- based inverter power control in low-inertia power systems,

    A. Ademola-Idowu and B. Zhang, “Frequency stability using MPC- based inverter power control in low-inertia power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1628–1637, 2021

    2021

  105. [114]

    MPC-based fast frequency control of voltage source converters in low-inertia power systems,

    O. Stanojev, U. Markovic, P. Aristidou, G. Hug, D. S. Callaway, and E. Vrettos, “MPC-based fast frequency control of voltage source converters in low-inertia power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 3209–3220, 2022

    2022

  106. [115]

    A model predictive approach for enhancing transient stability of grid-forming converters,

    A. Arjomandi-Nezhad, Y . Guo, B. C. Pal, and D. Varagnolo, “A model predictive approach for enhancing transient stability of grid-forming converters,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6675–6688, 2024

    2024

  107. [116]

    Transient stable corrective control using neural lyapunov learning,

    F. Bellizio, J. L. Cremer, and G. Strbac, “Transient stable corrective control using neural lyapunov learning,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3245–3253, 2023

    2023

  108. [117]

    System protection schemes in power networks,

    CIGRE Task Force 38.02.19, “System protection schemes in power networks,” CIGRE, Tech. Rep., 2001

    2001

  109. [118]

    Design aspects for wide-area monitoring and control systems,

    M. Zima, M. Larsson, P. Korba, C. Rehtanz, and G. Andersson, “Design aspects for wide-area monitoring and control systems,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 980–996, 2005

    2005

  110. [119]

    Causes of the 2003 major grid blackouts in north america and europe, and recommended means to improve system dynamic performance,

    G. Anderssonet al., “Causes of the 2003 major grid blackouts in north america and europe, and recommended means to improve system dynamic performance,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1922–1928, 2005

    2003

  111. [120]

    Reliability standard PRC-012-2: Remedial action schemes,

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Reliability standard PRC-012-2: Remedial action schemes,” NERC, Tech. Rep., 2020

    2020

  112. [121]

    Fusion of microgrid control with model-free reinforcement learning: Review and vision,

    B. She, F. Li, H. Cui, J. Zhang, and R. Bo, “Fusion of microgrid control with model-free reinforcement learning: Review and vision,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 3232–3245, 2022

    2022

  113. [122]

    Convolutional neural network-based power system transient stability assessment and instability mode prediction,

    Z. Shi, W. Yao, L. Zeng, J. Wen, J. Fang, X. Ai, and J. Wen, “Convolutional neural network-based power system transient stability assessment and instability mode prediction,”Applied Energy, vol. 263, p. 114586, 2020

    2020

  114. [123]

    Safe reinforcement learning for emergency load shedding of power systems,

    T. L. Vu, S. Mukherjee, T. Yin, R. Huang, J. Tan, and Q. Huang, “Safe reinforcement learning for emergency load shedding of power systems,” in2021 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2021, pp. 1–5

    2021

  115. [124]

    Multi-objective coordinated dispatch of high wind-penetrated power systems against transient instability,

    X. Xie, Y . Xu, Z. Y . Dong, Y . Zhang, and J. Liu, “Multi-objective coordinated dispatch of high wind-penetrated power systems against transient instability,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 14, no. 19, pp. 4079–4088, 2020

    2020

  116. [125]

    A review of energy storage for power system resilience: Functions, metrics, and applications,

    B. She, D. Wu, and K.-B. Kwon, “A review of energy storage for power system resilience: Functions, metrics, and applications,”Applied Energy, vol. 420, p. 128056, 2026

    2026

  117. [126]

    Improving the statement of the corrective security-constrained optimal power-flow problem,

    F. Capitanescu and L. Wehenkel, “Improving the statement of the corrective security-constrained optimal power-flow problem,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 887–889, 2007

    2007

  118. [127]

    Pricing inertia and frequency response with diverse dynamics in a mixed-integer second-order cone programming formulation,

    L. Badesa, F. Teng, and G. Strbac, “Pricing inertia and frequency response with diverse dynamics in a mixed-integer second-order cone programming formulation,”Applied Energy, vol. 260, p. 114334, 2020

    2020

  119. [128]

    Transmission-and-distribution dynamic co-simulation framework for distributed energy resource frequency response,

    W. Wang, X. Fang, H. Cui, F. Li, Y . Liu, and T. J. Overbye, “Transmission-and-distribution dynamic co-simulation framework for distributed energy resource frequency response,”IEEE transactions on smart grid, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 482–495, 2021

    2021

  120. [129]

    Virtual synchronous generator control using twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient method,

    O. Oboreh-Snapps, B. She, S. Fahad, H. Chen, J. Kimball, F. Li, H. Cui, and R. Bo, “Virtual synchronous generator control using twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient method,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 214–228, 2023

    2023

  121. [130]

    DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,

    P. L. Donti, D. Rolnick, and J. Z. Kolter, “DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  122. [131]

    Aggregated report on NERC level 2 recommendation to industry: Findings from inverter- based resource model quality deficiencies alert,

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “Aggregated report on NERC level 2 recommendation to industry: Findings from inverter- based resource model quality deficiencies alert,” NERC, Tech. Rep., Apr. 2025

    2025

  123. [132]

    The power grid library for benchmarking AC optimal power flow algorithms,

    S. Babaeinejadsarookolaee, A. Birchfield, R. D. Christie, C. Coffrin, C. DeMarco, R. Diao, M. Ferris, S. Greene, R. Huang, C. Josz, and R. D. Zimmerman, “The power grid library for benchmarking AC optimal power flow algorithms,” 2019, arXiv:1908.02788

    2019 arXiv

  124. [133]

    ARPA-E grid optimization competition challenge 1 data set,

    S. Elbert, J. Holzer, A. Veeramany, K. Hedman, H. Mittelmann, C. Cof- frin, T. Overbye, A. Birchfield, C. DeMarco, R. Duthu, O. Kuchar, H. Li, A. Tbaileh, and J. Wert, “ARPA-E grid optimization competition challenge 1 data set,” Open Energy Data Initiative, Tech. Rep., 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.