Network Topology Reconfiguration: Optimal Transition Planning

Adolfo Anta; Basel Morsy; Jochen Cremer; Jochen Stiasny

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Network Topology Reconfiguration: Optimal Transition Planning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A receding-horizon framework turns topology reconfiguration into executable, AC-feasible transition plans that cut operating costs by up to 18.4 percent.

desk verdict A genuinely new transition-planning formulation with a credible MPC-plus-cuts scheme and honest case studies, but the 'AC-feasible at every intermediate point' claim is only as strong as the steady-state endpoints because the certifier relaxes the dispatch freeze at switching steps. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12047 v1 pith:EE2ETPCC submitted 2026-08-12 eess.SY cs.SY

Basel Morsy , Jochen Stiasny , Adolfo Anta , Jochen Cremer This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords networktopologyreconfigurationoptimaltransitionplanningtransmissionswitchingACfeasibilityrecedinghorizoncontrolcongestionmanagementno-goodcutsmodelpredictive

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

Network topology reconfiguration (NTR) promises cheaper grid operation, but the reported savings belong to a target operating point, not to the journey that reaches it. This paper argues that the transition itself must be planned: because each topology induces its own feasible dispatch region, doing the redispatch and the switching in the wrong order drives intermediate flows past thermal limits. It formulates Optimal Transition Planning (OTP) as a sequential decision problem that keeps every intermediate state AC-feasible, and solves it tractably with a receding-horizon scheme in which a simplified planner proposes trajectories and an AC feasibility filter certifies or rejects them. On congested systems up to 1354 buses, the method produces executable transitions that cut operating cost by up to 18.4 percent compared with doing nothing, and it returns near-trivial plans when congestion does not reward reconfiguration.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the separation of proposal from certification inside a receding-horizon controller. A mixed-integer linear planner (the DC instantiation) solves a window of $H$ steps under a single-action rule—each step either switches or redispatches, never both—and proposes a trajectory. A single-period AC proxy screens each unique topology for individual AC feasibility, and a multi-period ACOPF verifies the full sequence, relaxing the planner's exact dispatch freeze to a quadratic penalty on the dispatch jump at switching steps because an exact freeze is generally infeasible under AC physics. Rejected topologies are excluded by no-good cuts on the switching binaries, stored in a persistent topology store and re-injected into every planner solve, and the loop commits only the first action before sliding the window forward. A final expansion stage inserts intermediate redispatch steps so that every consecutive dispatch pair respects the ramp budget.

What would settle it

Run a time-domain transient simulation of the planned 118-bus transition, including the switching events and the rapid dispatch adjustments, and check whether any branch flow or voltage violates its limit between the certified steady-state points; a violation would show that steady-state AC feasibility does not guarantee a physically executable plan.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a topology reconfiguration target can be turned into an executable sequence of operating points, each satisfying the AC power flow equations and thermal limits, by co-optimizing the switching sequence and the dispatch trajectory. The key geometric fact is that each topology has its own feasible dispatch region, so a valid transition must pass through an intermediate dispatch in the intersection $\mathcal{F}(\tau_0) \cap \mathcal{F}(\tau^\star)$, and when the regions do not intersect, through intermediate topologies that connect them. The proposed method—a receding-horizon loop with a DC planner, a single-period AC proxy, a multi-period ACOPF certifier, and no-good cuts that permanently exclude infeasible topologies—finds such transitions on systems up to 1354 buses and reduces operating cost by up to 18.4 percent over the no-switching ACOPF baseline. In the most valuable test case, an unfiltered DC plan is not AC-realizable at all, so the feasibility filter is what makes the saving accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The plan is certified by steady-state AC power flow and thermal limits at each step, with the dispatch change across a switch treated as a single atomic action; if switching transients or the dynamic response between steady states violate limits, the certified plan may not be physically executable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the most valuable test case (118 buses), feeding the unfiltered DC plan into a multi-period ACOPF is infeasible, so the AC feasibility filter is what makes the 18.4 percent saving executable at all.
The method returns a near-trivial plan when reconfiguration offers no congestion relief, giving operators a direct signal about whether NTR is worth executing.
An optional destination term lets the same framework drive toward a prescribed target topology, converting a snapshot NTR solution into a target-guided transition plan.
Solve times range from seconds to about an hour on laptop-class hardware, placing the computation within offline operational planning horizons.
A dual-based cut baseline can outperform the combinatorial filter on some systems but is brittle—on one system it commits no switching at all—while the combinatorial filter certifies an AC-feasible plan on every system.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the cut store persists across receding windows and the paper notes reuse as promising, reusing the same cuts across consecutive operating points or load conditions may cut solve times substantially; this is a testable extension, not a demonstrated result.
The steady-state certificate leaves electromechanical switching transients and the dynamic response to dispatch jumps out of scope; a time-domain simulation of the planned sequence is the natural next test of whether the plans survive dynamic criteria.
The single-action rule is conservative by design, and the paper notes it relaxes to bounded simultaneous actions; quantifying the cost or feasibility gain of such a relaxation would clarify its operational value.
Each topology's feasible dispatch region is non-convex, and the receding-horizon loop terminates at a local optimum, so the saved-cost numbers are lower bounds on what a globally optimal transition could achieve; the gap is not quantified.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the paper tackles a real gap—snapshot NTR gives a target but no route—and the OTP formulation is new as far as I know. The method looks credible and the 18.4% savings on 118-bus is a real algorithmic result, but the 'AC-feasible at every intermediate point' claim is softer than it sounds, because the certifying ACOPF relaxes the dispatch freeze at switching steps and no dynamic check is done between steady-state points.

What is actually new: co-planning the switching sequence and the dispatch trajectory with an AC feasibility filter at every discrete step. Table I is honest: [11], [12], and [17] are the closest prior work, and none of them co-plans both. The motivating 5-bus example is very clear. The receding-horizon scheme with reusable combinatorial cuts is sensible, and the naive DC-to-AC baseline shows the filter is doing real work—the 118-bus unfiltered plan is infeasible. The evaluation is also honest in an underrated way: zero savings on three systems and sub-5% on several others, so the headline number is not cherry-picked by the method itself. The citation pattern looks appropriate; self-citations are to a substation-switching representation and to a previous neural-network switching paper, both relevant.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test flags. Model 2 freezes dispatch exactly at a switch, but Model 3 relaxes that to a quadratic penalty because an exact freeze is generally infeasible under AC physics. That is a legitimate modeling compromise, but the consequence is that a certified 'switching step' can include a dispatch adjustment, and Section IV-D passes such steps through as atomic actions. So the trajectory is AC-feasible at the discrete endpoints, not necessarily at the changing dispatch between them. Section VI acknowledges this—switching transients are not modeled and the dispatch jump needs dynamic assessment—but the abstract's 'every intermediate point' phrasing overstates what is actually certified. With gamma = 1e-3, the penalty is tiny relative to terminal costs, and the paper does not report the actual jump sizes at switching steps, so the reader cannot tell whether those adjustments are small loss-compensation moves or large redispatch actions. That is a significant caveat, not a fatal flaw.

Minor weaknesses: no released code, single operating point per system, no N-1, and savings are against the do-nothing ACOPF rather than a global NTR optimum. The paper states all of these, which I credit.

Who this is for: anyone working on transmission switching operations, congestion management, or MPC for power systems. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it out, with reviewers specifically asked to look at the soft-freeze relaxation, require reporting of dispatch jump magnitudes, and ask the authors to either enforce a tighter bound on switch-step dispatch movement or reframe the claims as steady-state-endpoint feasibility. I would bring it to the group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Optimal Transition Planning (OTP): co-optimizing a sequence of generation redispatch and substation switching actions so that every intermediate operating point satisfies AC power flow and thermal limits, while respecting per-step switch budgets and ramp limits. The solution method is a two-stage receding-horizon scheme: an MPC-DC planner proposes a window trajectory, a single-period AC proxy and a multi-period ACOPF (Model 3) certify it, and combinatorial no-good cuts exclude infeasible topologies. The paper reports case studies on ten congested PGLib-OPF API systems up to 1354 buses, with up to 18.4% cost savings on the 118-bus system, zero savings on three uncongested systems, and comparisons against a Benders-cut baseline and a no-filter DC-to-AC baseline.

Significance. If the feasibility certificate were exact, this would be a valuable contribution: it turns a static NTR target into an executable plan, demonstrates that an unfiltered DC plan is not AC-realizable on the most valuable cases, and provides a reusable-cut framework that is a natural multi-period extension of existing snapshot decomposition schemes. The paper is honest in reporting zero-savings cases and in comparing against a literature-derived Benders baseline, and the benchmark set is standard and external. The main concern is that the certifier's soft freeze weakens the exactness of the 'AC-feasible transition' claim; with the exact-freeze issue fixed or reframed, the contribution is significant for transmission-system operational planning.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-C, Model 3 (Eq. (3a))] Replacing the exact dispatch freeze of Model 2 (Eq. (2f)) with the quadratic penalty in Eq. (3a), with gamma=1e-3 in Table II, allows a dispatch change to occur in the same step as a topology change. Since the single-action rule in Section II is what makes each intermediate operating point well defined and checkable, the AC feasibility certificate now covers only the discrete pre- and post-switch steady states, not the transition between them. The paper should either enforce the exact freeze in the certifier (e.g., by requiring that the same dispatch be AC-feasible under both topologies at the switching step) or explicitly model and verify the dispatch movement during switching; otherwise the abstract's claim of 'AC-feasible transitions' is stronger than what Model 3 certifies.
[Section IV-D] The expansion states that 'switching steps are passed through unchanged' and that the dispatch adjustment they carry is 'treated as an atomic part of the switching action rather than a ramp-limited redispatch', yet the same paragraph concludes that the result is 'a physically realizable trajectory in which every consecutive dispatch pair respects the ramp budget'. These statements are contradictory, and Section VI concedes that the dispatch jump requires a dynamic response to be judged under the corresponding criteria. This is load-bearing because the paper's conclusion and Table III present the expanded trajectory as ramp-feasible and AC-feasible at every step. Please revise the claims, and either enforce ramp limits across switching steps or report the switching-step dispatch jumps separately from the ramp-limited redispatch steps.
[Section IV-C] The assertion that an exact freeze P_t=P_{t-1} is 'generally infeasible under AC physics, because their losses differ' is not substantiated and appears overstated; a fixed generator dispatch can often be accommodated by the slack bus, with infeasibility arising only when limits are binding. Since this assertion is the stated reason for relaxing the freeze, please provide a concrete counterexample or a more precise condition under which the freeze is infeasible; if no such condition is needed, the exact freeze should be retained in the certifier.

minor comments (5)

[Table I] The combined check/cross markers in the table cells are hard to parse; separate columns for each power-flow model and for technical/physical constraints would improve readability.
[Table III] The naive DC-to-AC column mixes the entry 'infeasible' with signed percentages; please define a clear convention for infeasible cases (e.g., an em dash) and state explicitly that a negative savings value means the naive plan is costlier than doing nothing.
[Section VI] The statement that the single-action restriction 'relaxes directly to a bounded number of simultaneous actions within the same MPC structure' appears without a concrete mechanism; a brief example or reference would clarify how simultaneous actions would be handled without losing the feasibility certificate.
[Title and Abstract] The word 'Optimal' is used for a receding-horizon heuristic whose termination condition in Algorithm 1 only guarantees a local optimum under fixed hyperparameters; a qualifier such as 'locally optimal' or 'heuristic' would prevent overstatement.
[Section IV-C] The single-period topology proxy uses a drift tolerance (Table II), but the text does not specify how the relaxed switch values are compared to the target pattern; please state the metric (e.g., Hamming distance or a continuous norm) and the acceptance threshold in the same units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 18.4% savings is an algorithmic output on external PGLib-OPF benchmarks, not a fitted target, and the only author-overlapping citation ([6], the ANR model) is a modular modeling ingredient rather than a load-bearing premise.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Model 1 defines the OTP problem; Model 2 instantiates it as a DC planner with an exact dispatch freeze across switching steps; Model 3 certifies the proposed topology sequence against the AC power flow equations (7) and operational limits, with the freeze relaxed to a quadratic penalty. The reported cost savings are computed directly from solving these models on standard PGLib-OPF API systems, and the method returns exactly zero savings on systems 30, 39, and 57, demonstrating that the numbers are not forced by a fitted constant. The naive DC-to-AC baseline is infeasible on systems 118 and 162, providing an external falsification test that the AC filter is doing real work rather than merely reciting its own assumptions. The only author-overlapping reference, [6], supplies the augmented network representation (ANR) for substation switching in the planner; it is a published, externally usable modeling representation and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as evidence for the feasibility claim, so it does not introduce circularity. The paper's own limitations are also not circular: Section VI states that 'the feasibility certificate is steady-state: intermediate operating points are AC-feasible, but switching transients are not modeled and N-1 security is not enforced along the transition', and Section IV-C explains that the certifier's soft penalty 'discourages but does not forbid movement', with Section IV-D treating the resulting dispatch adjustment as an atomic part of a switching action. These are scoping and modeling-fidelity caveats about what the certificate covers, not reductions of any derived quantity to an input by construction. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for the ANR representation; no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The method uses the existing augmented network representation from [6] and standard OPF models. The central claim rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters and the steady-state feasibility premise, both of which are listed above.

free parameters (9)

look-ahead horizon H = 5
Chosen by hand; controls how many steps the DC planner looks ahead in each window.
per-step reconfiguration budget lambda_r = 4
Limits reconfiguration switch changes per step; set by the authors.
per-step coupler budget lambda_c = 1
Limits coupler switch changes per step; set by the authors.
ramp budget factor alpha = 0.1
Per-step ramp limit as a fraction of generator capacity; used in expansion equation (5).
convergence tolerance epsilon = 1e-4
Terminal-cost improvement threshold for outer-loop termination.
AC proxy drift tolerance = 1e-2
Tolerance for matching the relaxed switch pattern to the planned topology in the single-period proxy.
max re-solve attempts per iteration = 6
Bounds the inner-loop computational budget; behavior when all attempts fail is not specified.
soft-freeze penalty weight gamma = 1e-3
Balances dispatch jump size against terminal cost in the multi-period ACOPF; directly shapes the certified trajectory.
big-M constants M_delta and M_E = M_delta = 1.2 rad, M_E = 50 S_base
Bounds for angle differences and de-energized branch flows in the ANR switching constraints.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The AC power flow equations (7) are the correct steady-state physical model of the transmission network.
Used as the equality constraint in Model 3 and in the AC proxy; standard in power systems.
domain assumption The DC power flow model is an adequate planning relaxation for proposing candidate trajectories.
The DC planner (Model 2) proposes trajectories that are later certified by AC checks; the fidelity gap is acknowledged and handled by filtering.
ad hoc to paper Each transition step performs exactly one action, either a redispatch or a switch.
Introduced in Section II to make intermediate states unambiguous; relaxed in the AC check via the quadratic penalty, creating an inconsistency.
ad hoc to paper Steady-state AC feasibility of the intermediate operating points is sufficient to certify an executable transition.
The paper explicitly excludes switching transients and N-1 security in Section VI; this is the weakest premise the central claim rests on.
ad hoc to paper Only substations adjacent to thermally congested lines are candidates for splitting.
The prescreen in Section V-A may exclude beneficial splits at unconested buses; the paper acknowledges this in limitations.
standard math The augmented network representation and its big-M switching constraints (8) correctly model substation switching.
Adopted from prior work [6]; the model is a published representation but the constants are chosen here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Network Topology Reconfiguration: Optimal Transition Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EE2ETPCC

@misc{pith2026260812047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Network Topology Reconfiguration: Optimal Transition Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EE2ETPCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12047}
}

read the original abstract

Network topology reconfiguration (NTR) can reduce power system operating costs by co-optimizing generation dispatch and substation switching, but the reported savings describe a target operating point rather than a way to reach it. Reaching this operating point requires a sequence of intermediate operating points, each satisfying the AC power flow equations and thermal limits; because each topology admits its own feasible dispatch region, a naive transition that switches or redispatches first can drive intermediate flows past their thermal limits. Existing methods leave this gap open: snapshot NTR identifies a target but not a route. We formulate the Optimal Transition Planning (OTP) problem, co-optimizing the switching sequence and dispatch trajectory subject to AC feasibility at every intermediate point. We solve this problem with a receding-horizon framework: a DC planner proposes a trajectory that is certified against an AC feasibility filter, and infeasible topologies are excluded using reusable combinatorial cuts. Case studies on congested PGLib-OPF systems up to 1354-bus show that the method produces AC-feasible transitions that reduce operating cost by up to 18.4% compared to the no-switching ACOPF solution on commodity hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12047 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Evolution of state, dispatch, and topology over time scales. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Two-stage overview of the methodology. Stage 1 is a receding horizon over look-ahead windows (the stacked cards). The front window runs an inner loop: from an initial point, the DC planner proposes a window trajectory and the AC check verifies it and returns its corrected cost, feeding cuts and cost back until the window is AC-feasible and improving; committing its first action and sliding forward yields the next wi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Operating-cost trajectory of the physical (ramp-expanded) transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Example of augmented network representation of a substation (en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[11]

Optimal topology transition,

T. Han, D. J. Hill, and Y . Song, “Optimal topology transition,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3029–3042, 2023

work page 2023
[12]

Static Switching Security in Multi– Period Transmission Switching,

C. Liu, J. Wang, and J. Ostrowski, “Static Switching Security in Multi– Period Transmission Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1850–1858, Nov. 2012

work page 2012
[17]

Day-ahead transmission grid topology optimization considering renewable energy sources’ uncertainty,

G. Bastianel, D. Van Hertem, H. Ergun, and L. Roald, “Day-ahead transmission grid topology optimization considering renewable energy sources’ uncertainty,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 174, p. 111527, 2026

work page 2026
[1]

Optimal Transmission Switching,

E. B. Fisher, R. P. O’Neill, and M. C. Ferris, “Optimal Transmission Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1346–1355, Aug. 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Co-Optimization of Generation Unit Commitment and Transmission Switching With N-1 Reliability,

K. W. Hedman, M. C. Ferris, R. P. O’Neill, E. B. Fisher, and S. S. Oren, “Co-Optimization of Generation Unit Commitment and Transmission Switching With N-1 Reliability,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1052–1063, May 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Congestion management through topologi- cal corrections: A case study of Central Western Europe,

J. Han and A. Papavasiliou, “Congestion management through topologi- cal corrections: A case study of Central Western Europe,”Energy Policy, vol. 86, pp. 470–482, Nov. 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Toward online bus-bar splitting for increas- ing load margins to static stability limit,

L. Wang and H.-D. Chiang, “Toward online bus-bar splitting for increas- ing load margins to static stability limit,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3715–3725, 2017. 10 Algorithm 1Receding-horizon MPC-DC with AC filtering Require:grid, optional target topology, horizon𝐻, switching budgets𝜆 𝑟,𝜆𝑐, tolerances𝜖and drift 1:Solve DC and A...

work page 2017
[5]

A stochastic security constrained unit commitment model for reconfigurable networks with high wind power penetration,

E. Nasrolahpour and H. Ghasemi, “A stochastic security constrained unit commitment model for reconfigurable networks with high wind power penetration,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 121, pp. 341–350, Apr. 2015

work page 2015

Show all 30 references

[6]

Security constrained OPF utilizing substation reconfiguration and busbar splitting,

B. Morsy, A. Hinneck, D. Pozo, and J. Bialek, “Security constrained OPF utilizing substation reconfiguration and busbar splitting,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 212, p. 108507, Nov. 2022

2022
[7]

Day-Ahead Contingency- Constrained Unit Commitment With Co-Optimized Post-Contingency Transmission Switching,

R. Saavedra, A. Street, and J. M. Arroyo, “Day-Ahead Contingency- Constrained Unit Commitment With Co-Optimized Post-Contingency Transmission Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4408–4420, Nov. 2020

2020
[8]

Optimal bus splitting for short- circuit current limitation in metropolitan area,

S. Namchoat and N. Hoonchareon, “Optimal bus splitting for short- circuit current limitation in metropolitan area,” in2013 10th Inter- national Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, May 2013, pp. 1–5

2013
[9]

Review on optimization methodologies in transmission network reconfiguration of power systems for grid resilience,

T. Aziz, Z. Lin, M. Waseem, and S. Liu, “Review on optimization methodologies in transmission network reconfiguration of power systems for grid resilience,”International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, p. e12704, 2021

2021
[10]

The Role of Optimal Transmission Switching in Enhancing Grid Flexibility: A Review,

M. Numan, M. F. Abbas, M. Yousif, S. S. M. Ghoneim, A. Mohammad, and A. Noorwali, “The Role of Optimal Transmission Switching in Enhancing Grid Flexibility: A Review,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 32 437–32 463, 2023

2023
[13]

Power Grid Congestion Management via Topology Optimization with AlphaZero,

M. Dorfer, A. R. Fuxjäger, K. Kozak, P. M. Blies, and M. Wasserer, “Power Grid Congestion Management via Topology Optimization with AlphaZero,” Nov. 2022, arXiv:2211.05612 [cs]

2022 arXiv
[14]

Subramanian, J

M. Subramanian, J. Viebahn, S. Tindemans, B. Donnot, and A. Marot, Exploring grid topology reconfiguration using a simple deep reinforce- ment learning approach, Nov. 2020

2020
[15]

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
[16]

Switching device-cognizant sequential distribution system restoration,

A. Arif, B. Cui, and Z. Wang, “Switching device-cognizant sequential distribution system restoration,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 317–329, 2022

2022
[18]

Tractable Transmission Topology Control Using Sensitivity Analysis,

P. A. Ruiz, J. M. Foster, A. Rudkevich, and M. C. Caramanis, “Tractable Transmission Topology Control Using Sensitivity Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1550–1559, Aug. 2012

2012
[19]

Fast Heuristics for Transmission- Line Switching,

J. D. Fuller, R. Ramasra, and A. Cha, “Fast Heuristics for Transmission- Line Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1377–1386, Aug. 2012

2012
[20]

On fast transmission topology control heuristics,

P. A. Ruiz, J. M. Foster, A. Rudkevich, and M. C. Caramanis, “On fast transmission topology control heuristics,” in2011 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 2011, pp. 1–8

2011
[21]

Heuristic Prescreening Switchable Branches in Optimal Transmission Switching,

C. Liu, J. Wang, and J. Ostrowski, “Heuristic Prescreening Switchable Branches in Optimal Transmission Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2289–2290, Nov. 2012

2012
[22]

Computationally efficient optimal Transmission Switching: Solution space reduction,

C. Barrows, S. Blumsack, and R. Bent, “Computationally efficient optimal Transmission Switching: Solution space reduction,” in2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Jul. 2012, pp. 1– 8

2012
[23]

Column Generation for Transmis- sion Switching of Electricity Networks with Unit Commitment,

J. C. Villumsen and A. B. Philpott, “Column Generation for Transmis- sion Switching of Electricity Networks with Unit Commitment,”Hong Kong, 2011

2011
[24]

Optimal transmission congestion management by means of substation reconfiguration,

E. Nasrolahpour, H. Ghasemi, and M. Khanabadi, “Optimal transmission congestion management by means of substation reconfiguration,” in20th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE2012), 2012, pp. 416–421

2012
[25]

An optimal transmission line switching and bus splitting heuristic incorporating ac and n-1 contingency constraints,

M. Heidarifar, P. Andrianesis, P. Ruiz, M. C. Caramanis, and I. C. Paschalidis, “An optimal transmission line switching and bus splitting heuristic incorporating ac and n-1 contingency constraints,”Interna- tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 133, p. 107278, 2021

2021
[26]

A Bound Strengthening Method for Optimal Transmission Switching in Power Systems,

S. Fattahi, J. Lavaei, and A. Atamtürk, “A Bound Strengthening Method for Optimal Transmission Switching in Power Systems,”IEEE Transac- tions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 280–291, Jan. 2019

2019
[27]

Security-Constrained Transmission Topol- ogy Control MILP Formulation Using Sensitivity Factors,

P. A. Ruiz, E. A. Goldis, A. Rudkevich, M. C. Caramanis, C. R. Philbrick, and J. M. Foster, “Security-Constrained Transmission Topol- ogy Control MILP Formulation Using Sensitivity Factors,”IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, pp. 1–1, 2016

2016
[28]

Learning-Based Topology Optimization of Power Networks,

T. Han and D. Hill, “Learning-Based Topology Optimization of Power Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, pp. 1–1, 2022

2022
[29]

Real-time transmission switching with neural networks,

A.-A. B. Bugaje, J. L. Cremer, and G. Strbac, “Real-time transmission switching with neural networks,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 696–705, 2023

2023
[30]

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

S. Babaeinejadsarookolaeeet al., “The power grid library for benchmarking ac optimal power flow algorithms,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02788

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [11]

Optimal topology transition,

T. Han, D. J. Hill, and Y . Song, “Optimal topology transition,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3029–3042, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [12]

Static Switching Security in Multi– Period Transmission Switching,

C. Liu, J. Wang, and J. Ostrowski, “Static Switching Security in Multi– Period Transmission Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1850–1858, Nov. 2012

work page 2012

[3] [17]

Day-ahead transmission grid topology optimization considering renewable energy sources’ uncertainty,

G. Bastianel, D. Van Hertem, H. Ergun, and L. Roald, “Day-ahead transmission grid topology optimization considering renewable energy sources’ uncertainty,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 174, p. 111527, 2026

work page 2026

[4] [1]

Optimal Transmission Switching,

E. B. Fisher, R. P. O’Neill, and M. C. Ferris, “Optimal Transmission Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1346–1355, Aug. 2008

work page 2008

[5] [2]

Co-Optimization of Generation Unit Commitment and Transmission Switching With N-1 Reliability,

K. W. Hedman, M. C. Ferris, R. P. O’Neill, E. B. Fisher, and S. S. Oren, “Co-Optimization of Generation Unit Commitment and Transmission Switching With N-1 Reliability,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1052–1063, May 2010

work page 2010

[6] [3]

Congestion management through topologi- cal corrections: A case study of Central Western Europe,

J. Han and A. Papavasiliou, “Congestion management through topologi- cal corrections: A case study of Central Western Europe,”Energy Policy, vol. 86, pp. 470–482, Nov. 2015

work page 2015

[7] [4]

Toward online bus-bar splitting for increas- ing load margins to static stability limit,

L. Wang and H.-D. Chiang, “Toward online bus-bar splitting for increas- ing load margins to static stability limit,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3715–3725, 2017. 10 Algorithm 1Receding-horizon MPC-DC with AC filtering Require:grid, optional target topology, horizon𝐻, switching budgets𝜆 𝑟,𝜆𝑐, tolerances𝜖and drift 1:Solve DC and A...

work page 2017

[8] [5]

A stochastic security constrained unit commitment model for reconfigurable networks with high wind power penetration,

E. Nasrolahpour and H. Ghasemi, “A stochastic security constrained unit commitment model for reconfigurable networks with high wind power penetration,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 121, pp. 341–350, Apr. 2015

work page 2015