Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

A Coupled Karhunen--Lo\`eve and Anisotropic Sparse Grid Interpolation Method for the Probabilistic Load Flow Problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Karhunen–Loève expansion combined with an anisotropic sparse grid can reproduce Monte Carlo probabilistic load flow statistics from 213 power-flow solves instead of 10,000.

desk verdict Useful application of known KL+sparse-grid machinery to PLF, but the headline accuracy claim is untested because the Monte Carlo baseline samples the same reduced KL model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09370 v2 pith:FR72KP3S submitted 2019-08-25 eess.SP

Brandon Johnson , Nathan L. Gibson , Eduardo Cotilla-Sanchez This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords probabilisticloadflowKarhunen–LoèveexpansionanisotropicsparsegridstochasticcollocationuncertaintyquantificationIEEE118-bussystemRTS-GMLCMonteCarlocomparison
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

The paper claims that the probabilistic load flow (PLF) problem can be solved accurately and far more cheaply by compressing the many correlated random inputs with a Karhunen–Loève (KL) expansion, then running the deterministic power-flow solver only at the nodes of an anisotropic sparse grid in the reduced random space. On the IEEE 118-bus system the 194 random inputs collapse to 12 KL modes, and the surrogate needs 213 collocation points, taking 1.09 seconds total against 35.4 seconds for a 10,000-sample Monte Carlo reference; reported mean errors stay near or below 0.11% and standard-deviation errors range up to about 13%. On the RTS-GMLC system, 59 inputs collapse to 6 modes and the method matches the accuracy of a much finer isotropic sparse grid with far fewer collocation points. The practical payoff is that Monte Carlo is the standard but expensive PLF baseline, and this work turns the statistical problem into a handful of deterministic power-flow solves with full output distributions available from the interpolant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled KL-expansion and anisotropic sparse grid. The KL expansion writes a correlated random input process as a mean plus a sum of eigenvalue-weighted eigenfunctions times independent random coefficients, and truncation reduces hundreds of physical inputs to a handful of dimensions (12 in the 118-bus case, 6 in the RTS-GMLC case). The anisotropic sparse grid $A(w,d,\gamma)$ then places collocation points preferentially on the retained dimensions that carry the most variance, using the weight vector $\gamma$ derived from eigenvalue decay and an integer level bound $l_{max}$; Clenshaw–Curtis or Fejér second quadrature supplies the nested nodes. This machinery converts the stochastic load flow problem into a small set of deterministic power-flow solves, and the resulting interpolant directly yields the reported statistical estimates and distribution functions.

What would settle it

Run a 10,000-draw Monte Carlo directly on the original 194 input distributions, without truncating through the KL expansion, and compare its output means and standard deviations with the 213-point anisotropic sparse-grid surrogate; if the relative errors exceed the reported ranges (means near 0.11% or better, standard deviations up to about 13%), the speed-up would be shown to be a property of the reduced model rather than of the sparse-grid interpolation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a truncated Karhunen–Loève expansion, $Y(x,\omega) \approx \bar{Y}(x) + \sum_{n=1}^{d} \sqrt{\lambda_n}\, \varphi_n(x)\, \xi_n(\omega)$, combined with an anisotropic sparse grid stochastic collocation method, recovers the output statistics of the nonlinear power-flow equations from far fewer deterministic solves than Monte Carlo. The authors choose the retained modes so that the eigenvalues capture more than 90% of the input variance, take each coefficient $\xi_n$ to be independent and uniform over $[-1,1]$, and use Fejér or Clenshaw–Curtis quadrature points so that the grid is nested. On the IEEE 118-bus test case this gives 213 collocation points in the 12-dimensional reduced space, running 30 times faster than 10,000 Monte Carlo samples while keeping means accurate to 0.11% or better and standard deviations within about 13%. On the RTS-GMLC test case the same construction on 6 KL modes gives comparable accuracy with 489 points. Because the sparse grid is an interpolant, the method produces full probability density and cumulative distribution functions of voltages, angles, injections, and flows, not just moments.

Load-bearing premise

The fragile premise is that a dozen (or half-dozen) retained Karhunen–Loève modes with uniformly distributed coefficients capture the real uncertainty of the original physical inputs closely enough that errors measured in the reduced space transfer to the actual power-flow problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Probabilistic load flow statistics become available from tens to hundreds of deterministic power-flow solves instead of thousands, on systems with spatially correlated wind, solar, and demand inputs.
  • Because the sparse grid defines an interpolant, full output probability densities and cumulative distribution functions come for free, enabling quantile and exceedance-probability risk measures without extra sampling.
  • The weight vector $\gamma$ and the maximum grid level $l_{max}$ give two explicit tuning knobs to trade computational time against accuracy, with the paper showing that strongly anisotropic weights reduce time sharply at a small accuracy cost.
  • The collocation points are independent of one another, so the deterministic solves can be parallelized, multiplying the reported speed-up by the number of available cores.
  • The RTS-GMLC demonstration shows the pipeline applies to a realistic modern grid with actual renewable generation data rather than only synthetic distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported validation compares the sparse-grid surrogate against Monte Carlo that samples the same reduced KL coefficients, so the claimed accuracy does not yet test the original 194 physical inputs; a comparison against Monte Carlo on the raw load and renewable distributions would show whether the speed-up survives outside KL space.
  • Editorial inference: the uniform-$[-1,1]$ assumption on the KL coefficients is a modelling choice made to allow quadrature; replacing it with empirically fitted marginal distributions or a different orthogonal basis could carry the method to non-Gaussian renewable data without changing the sparse-grid core.
  • Editorial inference: the coupling of KL dimension reduction with anisotropic sparse grids is not tied to the load-flow equations, so the same construction could be tried on other expensive simulations with spatially correlated uncertain inputs, such as optimal power flow or transient stability screening.
  • Editorial inference: using eigenvalue decay to set the anisotropic weights is an a priori choice; for strongly nonlinear outputs, estimating weights from output sensitivity (for example by freezing other inputs and measuring output variation) might give better accuracy per collocation point.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a probabilistic load flow (PLF) method that couples a Karhunen–Loève (KL) expansion with anisotropic sparse grid interpolation. The KL expansion reduces the dimension of the stochastic input space, and the anisotropic sparse grid provides a deterministic collocation set whose deterministic load-flow solves yield output statistics. The method is tested on the IEEE 118-bus system (194 random inputs reduced to 12 KL modes) and on the RTS-GMLC system (59 inputs reduced to 6 KL modes). The authors report that the anisotropic sparse grid uses 213 and 489 collocation points instead of 10,000 Monte Carlo samples, reducing total computation time from 35.4 s to 1.09 s for the 118-bus case and from 30.9 s to 2.01 s for RTS-GMLC, with mean errors of the order of 0.1% or less and standard-deviation errors up to 13.0% across output types. Accuracy is also assessed with Kullback–Leibler divergence and CDF comparisons.

Significance. If the central claim held as stated, the paper would provide a practical, non-intrusive surrogate for PLF statistics with a large speedup relative to Monte Carlo. The methodological building blocks are standard and properly cited: the KL expansion is a textbook dimension-reduction tool, and the anisotropic Smolyak construction follows Nobile–Tempone–Webster. The use of Fejér's second quadrature to avoid endpoint extrapolation is a thoughtful detail. The paper also reports concrete point counts, timings, and error measures on recognized test systems, which is a strength. The main limitation is external validity: the Monte Carlo reference is run on the same KL-reduced, uniform-coefficient model that the sparse grid approximates, so the reported errors do not measure how well the reduced model represents the original physical input distributions. This is a load-bearing gap because the abstract and conclusion promise accuracy and speedup for the original PLF problem, not only for the reduced surrogate model.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.2 and §5.2, Eq. (18)] The accuracy validation is internal to the KL-reduced uniform model. Section 6.2 states that 'The Monte Carlo samples used here for performance comparison are taken on the random variables ξn in the KL-expansion as compared to randomly sampling the random input variables.' Consequently, the εμ and εσ values from Eq. (18) compare the sparse-grid interpolant with Monte Carlo on the same 12-dimensional (or 6-dimensional) reduced model, not with a Monte Carlo run on the original 194 (or 59) physical inputs. The abstract's claim of 'a decrease in computational time when compared to the 10,000 sample Monte Carlo method given a bound on mean and standard deviation error' is therefore not established for the original PLF problem. The two unvalidated modeling choices—the 90% eigenvalue-variance truncation threshold and the assumption that each ξn is uniform on [−1,1]—are embedded in both the sparse-grid approximation and the reference. The authors should either validate the KL reduction against Monte Carlo on the original input distributions for at least one test case, or explicitly and consistently reframe the claims as applying to the KL-reduced model.
  2. [§6.3, Tables 1 and 2] The moment errors are identical across different grid levels, which is inconsistent with the claim that a higher-level grid improves accuracy. In Table 1, the isotropic l=3 and l=4 rows have exactly the same εμ and εσ values for every output type, and in Table 2 the l=4 and l=5 rows are likewise identical, even though the KLD values change. If the output moments are computed from different interpolants with different numbers of collocation points, exact equality to all reported digits is surprising and needs an explanation. At face value it suggests either that the moment computation is insensitive to the interpolant or that the reported moment errors are not actually distinguishing the methods, which weakens the convergence argument in the paper.
  3. [§5.2 and §6.4] The claimed error bound is never quantified and the Monte Carlo reference has no reported sampling error. The abstract promises results 'given a bound on mean and standard deviation error,' but no numerical bound is stated anywhere in the paper. Since the Monte Carlo reference uses 10,000 samples, the reported εσ (up to 13.0% for active power injection in Table 1) may be within Monte Carlo sampling noise; without error bars, bootstrap intervals, or a second MC seed the reader cannot assess whether the observed deviations are due to the sparse-grid approximation or to MC variability. The authors should report uncertainty in the reference statistics or justify that 10,000 samples are sufficient for the claimed accuracy levels.
  4. [§7 vs. Tables 1 and 3] The conclusion states that the method is '30 times faster while only having a 0.05% and 6% error in the mean and standard deviation when compared to 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.' This is inconsistent with the reported results: Table 1 shows standard-deviation errors up to 13.0% (for Pi) and 7.71% (for Pi,j) for the anisotropic sparse grid, and Table 3 shows the total time reduction is about 32.5× (35.4 s vs. 1.09 s), not simply '30 times' with a single error value. The conclusion should be rewritten to match the tabulated accuracy and to state the output-specific range of errors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The text contains the typo 'Frendholm integral equation'; it should read 'Fredholm integral equation.'
  2. [§5.2] The KLD in Eq. (19) is an asymmetric measure and its value depends on the histogram binning and estimation procedure for fMCS and fgrid; the paper should specify the bin width or kernel density estimator used to produce the reported KLD values.
  3. [§6.2] The sentence 'the covariance matrix is built using 10,000 uniformly generated samples of the input source' is ambiguous when the input source is defined by a normal or binomial PDF; clarify whether 'uniformly' means 'randomly' or literally uniform draws, and how those draws are converted to samples of the specified distribution.
  4. [§6.3, Figure 3] The caption of Figure 3 refers to 'Bus 93' while the text discusses 'Bus 83' of the IEEE 118-bus system; please reconcile the bus numbering.
  5. [§4 and §6.2] The manuscript first discusses choosing the anisotropic weight vector from the eigenpairs in §3.3, but §6.2 sets γn=2γn−1 a priori; clarify the relationship between the eigenpair-based selection and the recursive choice actually used in the experiments, since this affects how the reported point counts should be interpreted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sparse-grid interpolant is benchmarked against an independent Monte Carlo run on the same KL-reduced variable set, and all approximation parameters are chosen a priori.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The paper defines the KL expansion from the input covariance, truncates by an eigenvalue-variance threshold, chooses each KL coefficient uniformly on [-1,1] to enable quadrature, constructs an anisotropic sparse grid with a fixed recursive weight vector, and evaluates deterministic power flows at the resulting collocation points. None of these choices are fitted to the output statistics that are later reported. The Monte Carlo reference is an independent random sampling of the same KL coefficients, so the error metrics in Eq. (18) measure only the sparse-grid interpolation error relative to Monte Carlo on the reduced model. The paper is explicit about this: 'The Monte Carlo samples used here for performance comparison are taken on the random variables ξn in the KL-expansion as compared to randomly sampling the random input variables. We consider representing the input uncertainty as a separate problem and are interested in how sampling the KL-expansion using quadrature nodes compares to random sampling.' This limits external validity—the reported accuracy does not validate the KL/uniform model against the original 194 physical inputs—but it is not circular reasoning, because the comparison is honestly framed as a test of the sparse-grid surrogate, not of the full input model. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no uniqueness claims imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the KL reduction being faithful, the uniform-coefficient choice being adequate, and a hand-chosen truncation threshold and weight schedule. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • KL truncation threshold (percent variance retained) = 90% (12 of 194 modes for IEEE 118; 6 of 59 for RTS-GMLC)
    Section 6.2 chooses d so that the retained eigenpairs contribute more than 90% of total variance. This threshold is hand-selected and directly controls the reduced dimension and hence the number of sparse grid points.
  • Anisotropic weight ratio gamma_n = 2 * gamma_{n-1} = gamma_1 = 1, gamma_n = 2 * gamma_{n-1}
    Section 6.2 sets the weight vector a priori with a recursive doubling heuristic rather than from eigenvalue decay; this determines which dimensions receive more collocation points and is central to the reported cost savings.
  • Maximum sparse grid level l_max = 5
    Section 6.2 sets l_max = 5 for all test cases; it limits refinement and trades accuracy against collocation point count.
  • Covariance sample size for PDF-defined inputs = 10,000 samples
    Section 6.2 builds covariance matrices for PDF-defined inputs from 10,000 uniformly generated samples; the eigenpairs and hence the KL representation depend on this sample size.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The input random variables are samples of an underlying spatial stochastic process with a known covariance function, so the KL expansion converges and truncation is valid.
    Section 2.1 opens with this assumption; it is what justifies dimension reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper Each KL coefficient xi_n is independent and uniformly distributed on [-1,1].
    Section 2.2 chooses uniformity to enable Clenshaw-Curtis/Fejer quadrature, and scales by sqrt(3) to enforce unit variance. This changes the joint distribution for non-Gaussian inputs and is not justified by the data.
  • ad hoc to paper Capturing more than 90% of the eigenvalue variance is sufficient for accurate output statistics under the nonlinear load flow map.
    Section 6.2 sets the truncation rule; no analysis shows that the remaining modes or the uniform-coefficient shape have negligible effect on voltage and flow distributions.
  • standard math Smolyak and anisotropic sparse grid interpolation converges for this class of functions, and negative-weight issues are absent for the used quadrature.
    Section 4 cites [29] and [30] for convergence guarantees; this is standard UQ background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Coupled Karhunen--Lo\`eve and Anisotropic Sparse Grid Interpolation Method for the Probabilistic Load Flow Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FR72KP3S

@misc{pith2026190809370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Coupled Karhunen--Lo\`eve and Anisotropic Sparse Grid Interpolation Method for the Probabilistic Load Flow Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FR72KP3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09370}
}
read the original abstract

In the traditional load flow analysis, a key assumption is that the input variables, i.e., generator output and customer demand, are fixed in time and the associated response has no variability. This assumption, however, is no longer valid as the adoption of renewable energy resources add more variability and uncertainty to the modern electrical system. Addressing these concerns is the definition of the Probabilistic Load Flow (PLF) problem. The challenge of the PLF problem lies in handling high-dimensional input uncertainties and the non-linearity of the load flow equations. The most straightforward way to address these problems, but at the cost of computational time, is to perform a Monte Carlo method. This work, however, solves these problems -- accuracy, high-dimensionality, and computational time -- with a coupled Karhunen-Lo\`eve (KL) expansion and Anisotropic Sparse Grid algorithm. The proposed method is implemented and tested on the IEEE 118-bus test system and a modernized version of the IEEE Reliability Test System - 1996, the Reliability Test System - Grid Modernization Lab Consortium (RTS-GMLC). Results for the 194-dimensional case show a decrease in computational time when compared to the 10,000 sample Monte Carlo method given a bound on mean and standard deviation error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09370 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-dimensional nodes for one-dimensional extrema of the Chebyshev polyno [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart for the proposed algorithm. See Section 4 for a joint description of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Voltage magnitude at Bus 93 in the IEEE 118-Bus system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reliability Test System–Grid Modernization Lab Consortium (RTS-GMLC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between computational time and accuracy, both as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Borkowska, Probabilistic Load Flow, IEEE Trans

    B. Borkowska, Probabilistic Load Flow, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-93 (1974) 1–6. doi: 10.1109/TPAS.1974.293973. 20

    arXiv 1974

  2. [2]

    J. M. Morales, J. P´ erez-Ruiz, Point estimate schemes to solve the prob- abilistic power flow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22 (2007) 1594–1601. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2007.907515

    work page arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    P. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Bak-Jensen, Probabilistic load flow: A review, 3rd Int. Conf. Deregul. Restruct. Power Technol. DRPT 2008 (2008) 1586–1591. doi:10.1109/DRPT.2008.4523658

    work page arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    R. N. Allan, A. M. L. da Silva, R. C. Burchett, Evaluation methods and accuracy in probabilistic load flow solutions, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-100 (1981) 2539–2546. doi: 10.1109/TPAS.1981.316721

    work page arXiv 1981

  5. [5]

    M. L. Kloubert, C. Rehtanz, Enhancement to the combination of point estimate method and Gram-Charlier Expansion method for probabilistic load flow computations, IEEE Manchester PowerTech (2017). doi: 10. 1109/PTC.2017.7980901

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. T. Lee, Probabilistic Load Flow Computation Using the Method of Combined Cumulants and Gram-Charlier Expansion, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19 (2004) 676–682. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2003. 818743

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2003 2004

  7. [7]

    M. Fan, S. Member, V. Vittal, G. T. Heydt, L. Fellow, Probabilistic Power Flow Studies for Transmission Systems With Photovoltaic Gen- eration Using Cumulants, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 27 (2012) 2251–2261. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2190533

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    R. R. Appino, T. M¨ uhlpfordt, T. Faulwasser, V. Hagenmeyer, On Solv- ing Probabilistic Load Flow for Radial Grids using Polynomial Chaos, in: 2017 IEEE Manchester PowerTech, 2017, pp. 1–6

    work page 2017

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    H. Wu, Y. Zhou, S. Dong, Y. Song, Probabilistic Load Flow Based on Generalized Polynomial Chaos, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 32 (2017) 820–821

    2017

  2. [10]

    X. Sun, Q. Tu, J. Chen, C. Zhang, X. Duan, Probabilistic load flow calculation based on sparse polynomial chaos expansion, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 12 (2018) 2735–2744. doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd. 2017.0859. 21

    2018

  3. [11]

    Y. Zhou, H. Wu, C. Gu, Y. Song, A Novel Method of Polynomial Approximation for Parametric Problems in Power Systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 32 (2017) 3298–3307. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2623820

    2017

  4. [12]

    Rosenblueth, Two-point estimates in probabilities, Appl

    E. Rosenblueth, Two-point estimates in probabilities, Appl. Math. Model. 5 (1981) 329–335. doi: 10.1016/S0307-904X(81)80054-6

    1981 doi

  5. [13]

    M. E. Harr, Probabilistic estimates for multivariate analyses, Appl. Math. Model. 13 (1989) 313–318. doi:10.1016/0307-904X(89)90075-9

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    K. S. Li, Point Estimate Method for Calculating Statistical Mo- ments, J. Eng. Mech. 118 (1992) 1506–1511. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-9399(1992)118:7(1506)

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    Hong, An efficient point estimate method for probabilistic anal- ysis, Reliab

    H. Hong, An efficient point estimate method for probabilistic anal- ysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 59 (1998) 261–267. doi: 10.1016/ S0951-8320(97)00071-9

    1998

  8. [16]

    Xiu, Fast numerical methods for stochastic computations: A review, in: Commun

    D. Xiu, Fast numerical methods for stochastic computations: A review, in: Commun. Comput. Phys., 2009, pp. 242–272. doi:10.1.1.148.5499. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Xiu, Numerical Methods for Stochastic Computations : A Spectral Method Approach, Princeton University Press, 2010

    D. Xiu, Numerical Methods for Stochastic Computations : A Spectral Method Approach, Princeton University Press, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    S. A. Smolyak, Quadrature and interpolation formulas for tensor prod- ucts of certain classes of functions, Doklady Akademii Nauk 148 (1963) 1042–1045

    1963

  11. [19]

    J. Tang, F. Ni, F. Ponci, A. Monti, Dimension-Adaptive Sparse Grid Interpolation for Uncertainty Quantification in Modern Power Systems: Probabilistic Power Flow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 31 (2016) 907–919. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2404841

    2016

  12. [20]

    F. Ni, P. H. Nguyen, J. F. G. Cobben, Basis-adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion for probabilistic power flow, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 32 (2017) 694–704. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2558622

    2017

  13. [21]

    D. D. Kosambi, Statistics in function space, The Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society 7 (1943) 76–88. 22

    1943

  14. [22]

    Karhunen, On linear methods in probability and statistics, Ann

    K. Karhunen, On linear methods in probability and statistics, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. AI Math.-Phys (1947) 1—-79

    1947

  15. [23]

    Lo` eve, Probability Theory II, volume 46 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer New York, New York, NY, 1978

    M. Lo` eve, Probability Theory II, volume 46 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer New York, New York, NY, 1978. doi: 10.1007/ 978-1-4684-9464-8

    1978

  16. [24]

    Nobile, R

    F. Nobile, R. Tempone, C. G. Webster, An Anisotropic Sparse Grid Stochastic Collocation Method for Partial Differential Equations with Random Input Data, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 46 (2008) 2411–2442. doi:10.1137/070680540. arXiv:1404.2647

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Griebel, T

    M. Griebel, T. Grestner, Numerical Integration using Sparse-grids, Nu- mer. Algorithms 18 (1998) 209–232

    1998

  18. [26]

    Gerstner, M

    T. Gerstner, M. Griebel, Dimension – Adaptive Tensor – Product Quadrature, Computing 71 (2003) 65–87. doi: 10.1007/ s00607-003-0015-5

    2003

  19. [27]

    Combining Coefficient

    J. Burkardt, The “Combining Coefficient” for Anisotropic Sparse Grids, Interdiscip. Cent. Appl. Math. & Inf. Technol. Dep. Virginia Tech (2012) 1–14. URL: https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/ presentations/sgmga_coefficient.pdf

    2012

  20. [28]

    C. W. Clenshaw, A. R. Curtis, A method for numerical integration on an automatic computer, Numerische Mathematik 2 (1960) 197–205

    1960

  21. [29]

    Novak, K

    E. Novak, K. Ritter, The curse of dimension and a universal method for numerical integration, in: Multivariate approximation and splines, Springer, 1997, pp. 177–187

    1997

  22. [30]

    Gerstner, M

    T. Gerstner, M. Griebel, Numerical integration using sparse grids, Nu- merical algorithms 18 (1998) 209

    1998

  23. [31]

    Fej´ er, Mechanische quadraturen mit positiven cotesschen zahlen, Mathematische Zeitschrift 37 (1933) 287–309

    L. Fej´ er, Mechanische quadraturen mit positiven cotesschen zahlen, Mathematische Zeitschrift 37 (1933) 287–309

    1933

  24. [32]

    Burkardt, John Burkhardt’s Home Page, 2019

    J. Burkardt, John Burkhardt’s Home Page, 2019. URL: https:// people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/. 23

    2019

  25. [33]

    R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murilla-Sanchez, R. J. Thomas, MATPOWER: Steady-State Operations, Planning and Analysis Tools for Power Sys- tems Research and Education, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26 (2011) 12–19

    2011

  26. [34]

    Kullback, R

    S. Kullback, R. A. Leibler, On information and sufficiency, The annals of mathematical statistics 22 (1951) 79–86

    1951

  27. [35]

    K. L. Judd, L. Maliar, S. Maliar, R. Valero, Smolyak method for solving dynamic economic models: Lagrange interpolation, anisotropic grid and adaptive domain, J. Econ. Dyn. Control 44 (2014) 92–123. doi:10.1016/ j.jedc.2014.03.003

    2014

  28. [36]

    Christie, Power Systems Test Case Archive, 2000

    R. Christie, Power Systems Test Case Archive, 2000. URL: http:// labs.ece.uw.edu/pstca/

    2000

  29. [37]

    Barrows, A

    C. Barrows, A. Bloom, A. Ehlen, J. Ikaheimo, J. Jorgenson, D. Krish- namurthy, J. Lau, B. McBennett, M. O’Connell, E. Preston, A. Staid, G. Stephen, J. Watson, The ieee reliability test system: A pro- posed 2019 update, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems (2019) 1–1. doi:10.110...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Ghaddar, J

    B. Ghaddar, J. Marecek, M. Mevissen, Optimal power flow as a poly- nomial optimization problem, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 31 (2016) 539–546. 24

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.