Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 cited by

Decision-calibrated prediction sets meet prescribed power system constraint targets within three percentage points.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 13:28 UTC pith:LF5ILTLQ

load-bearing objection Decision-calibrated sets hit the reliability targets more tightly than coverage calibration in the reported reserve scheduling tests, but the gain may partly reflect the PICNN score model rather than the calibration step alone. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.02081 v1 pith:LF5ILTLQ submitted 2026-06-01 math.OC stat.ML

Decision-calibrated prediction sets for robust power system operations

Akylas Stratigakos , Honglin Wen , Elina Spyrou , Pierre Pinson This is my paper
classification math.OC stat.ML
keywords decision-calibrated prediction setsrobust optimizationpower systemsuncertainty setsconformal risk controloptimal power flowrenewable integration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops prediction sets for uncertainty in power systems calibrated to the reliability of downstream decisions rather than to statistical coverage. These sets are learned as sub-level sets of norm-based score functions represented by partially input-convex neural networks, which capture context and dependence while keeping the sets convex for robust optimization. A threshold parameter is then calibrated, drawing on conformal risk control ideas, to limit expected violations of operational constraints. When applied to 15-minute reserve scheduling formulated as a robust DC optimal power flow problem, the resulting sets stay close to target reliability levels. Standard coverage calibration produces sets that exceed targets substantially and raise costs.

Core claim

Decision-calibrated prediction sets are conditional multivariate prediction sets whose calibration is defined in terms of the reliability of downstream decisions. They are constructed as sub-level sets of norm-based score functions represented by partially input-convex neural networks and a score-threshold parameter is calibrated to control the expected violations of downstream operational constraints in robust optimization.

What carries the argument

Decision-calibrated prediction sets as sub-level sets of norm-based score functions from partially input-convex neural networks, with threshold calibrated to control expected constraint violations.

Load-bearing premise

Partially input-convex neural networks can represent the required norm-based score functions while capturing contextual information and multivariate dependence and still preserving the convexity needed for tractable robust formulations.

What would settle it

Numerical experiments on the reserve scheduling problem in which decision-calibrated sets exceed the three-percentage-point tolerance on constraint violations or produce no cost reduction relative to coverage-based sets.

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

If this is right

  • Decision-calibrated sets attain prescribed constraint-satisfaction targets within about three percentage points.
  • Standard coverage-based calibration exceeds these targets by more than eleven percentage points, leading to larger sets.
  • The difference produces higher operating costs under coverage-based calibration.
  • The approach applies to network-constrained deliverability formulated as a robust DC optimal power flow problem with affine recourse.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The calibration approach could transfer to other robust optimization settings where downstream decisions depend on uncertainty sets.
  • Alternative convex score-function representations might allow the method to scale to larger networks or different recourse structures.
  • Validation on live grid data streams would test whether the learned scores remain effective under forecast distribution shifts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes decision-calibrated prediction sets as uncertainty sets for robust optimization in power system operations, specifically 15-minute-ahead reserve scheduling formulated as a robust DC optimal power flow with affine recourse. Conditional multivariate sets are constructed as sub-level sets of norm-based score functions represented by partially input-convex neural networks (PICNNs) to capture contextual information and dependence while preserving convexity. A score-threshold parameter is then calibrated via conformal risk control to control expected downstream constraint violations, rather than predictive coverage. Numerical experiments report that these sets meet prescribed constraint-satisfaction targets within approximately three percentage points, versus systematic exceedance by more than eleven percentage points under standard coverage-based calibration, yielding smaller sets and lower operating costs.

Significance. If the central empirical comparison holds under controlled conditions, the work provides a concrete method to reduce conservatism in data-driven robust optimization by aligning uncertainty-set calibration directly with decision reliability. The integration of PICNNs for tractable convex uncertainty sets with conformal risk control for downstream risk is a strength that could extend to other stochastic programs; the reported numerical gaps (3 pp vs. 11 pp) on network-constrained deliverability illustrate potential cost savings without sacrificing reliability targets.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments (abstract and corresponding section): the performance comparison states that decision-calibrated sets meet targets within ~3 pp while coverage-based calibration exceeds by >11 pp, but does not specify whether the coverage-based baseline employs the identical PICNN architecture, training procedure, contextual inputs, and norm-based score function. This detail is load-bearing for attributing the gap to the calibration step rather than differences in dependence modeling.
  2. [Learning step] Learning step (abstract, paragraph on PICNN representation): the claim that PICNNs simultaneously capture multivariate dependence, contextual information, and the convexity required for tractable embedding in the robust DC OPF with affine recourse rests on the specific choice of norm-based score; the manuscript should verify that sub-level sets remain convex and that the resulting robust formulation stays tractable, as this underpins both the method and the reported cost reductions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments, which help clarify key aspects of the work. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Numerical experiments (abstract and corresponding section): the performance comparison states that decision-calibrated sets meet targets within ~3 pp while coverage-based calibration exceeds by >11 pp, but does not specify whether the coverage-based baseline employs the identical PICNN architecture, training procedure, contextual inputs, and norm-based score function. This detail is load-bearing for attributing the gap to the calibration step rather than differences in dependence modeling.

    Authors: We agree that this detail is essential for attributing the observed performance gap specifically to the calibration procedure. In the experiments, the coverage-based baseline uses the identical PICNN architecture, training procedure, contextual inputs, and norm-based score function, with the only difference being the choice of threshold calibration (coverage guarantee versus conformal risk control). We will revise the numerical experiments section (and update the abstract for consistency) to explicitly state this, ensuring the comparison isolates the effect of decision calibration. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Learning step (abstract, paragraph on PICNN representation): the claim that PICNNs simultaneously capture multivariate dependence, contextual information, and the convexity required for tractable embedding in the robust DC OPF with affine recourse rests on the specific choice of norm-based score; the manuscript should verify that sub-level sets remain convex and that the resulting robust formulation stays tractable, as this underpins both the method and the reported cost reductions.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The norm-based score combined with the partially input-convex structure ensures the score function is convex in the uncertainty variables (for fixed context), so that sub-level sets are convex; this convexity is preserved under the chosen norm and directly yields a tractable robust DC OPF with affine recourse. We will add a short verification paragraph in the learning-step section confirming convexity of the sub-level sets and tractability of the resulting formulation, thereby reinforcing the foundation of the reported results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external conformal risk control and empirical validation

full rationale

The paper learns conditional sets as sub-level sets of norm-based scores via PICNNs, then applies conformal risk control (an external framework) to calibrate the threshold for downstream constraint risk. The central performance claims rest on numerical experiments contrasting decision-calibrated vs. coverage-based sets, without any step where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or where the result reduces by the paper's own equations to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are present; the method is self-contained against external benchmarks and data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representational power of PICNNs for convex score functions and on the applicability of conformal risk control to downstream decision violations. One free parameter (the score threshold) is calibrated from data.

free parameters (1)
  • score-threshold parameter
    Sets the volume of the uncertainty set and is calibrated to control expected violations of downstream operational constraints.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Partially input-convex neural networks can represent norm-based score functions while preserving convexity and tractability for downstream robust optimization.
    Invoked when learning conditional prediction sets as sub-level sets.
invented entities (1)
  • decision-calibrated prediction sets no independent evidence
    purpose: Uncertainty sets whose size is chosen to control expected downstream constraint violations rather than predictive coverage.
    New concept introduced to replace coverage-based calibration in robust optimization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5769 in / 1475 out tokens · 38491 ms · 2026-06-28T13:28:17.356583+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Robust optimization offers a tractable approach to balance operating costs and reliability in power systems dominated by weather-dependent renewable uncertainty, but its performance depends critically on the uncertainty set. Standard data-driven approaches often calibrate uncertainty sets to attain predictive coverage, which can produce unnecessarily large sets and costly operating decisions. In contrast, we introduce decision-calibrated prediction sets and embed them as uncertainty sets in robust optimization problems; these are conditional multivariate prediction sets where calibration is defined in terms of the reliability of downstream decisions, rather than in terms of the coverage. First, we learn these conditional prediction sets as sub-level sets of norm-based score functions represented by partially input-convex neural networks, capturing contextual information and multivariate dependence while preserving convexity and tractability in downstream robust formulations. Second, inspired by conformal risk control, we calibrate a score-threshold parameter that sets the volume of the uncertainty set, thereby controlling the expected violations of downstream operational constraints. We apply our approach to 15-minute-ahead reserve scheduling with network-constrained deliverability, which we formulate as a robust DC optimal power flow problem with affine recourse. Numerical experiments show that decision-calibrated sets attain prescribed constraint-satisfaction targets within about three percentage points, whereas standard coverage-based calibration systematically exceeds these targets by more than eleven percentage points, leading to larger sets and higher operating costs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02081 by Akylas Stratigakos, Elina Spyrou, Honglin Wen, Pierre Pinson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Proposed two-step approach. Right: The colormap shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The solid and dashed lines plot coverage- and decision-calibrated sets, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average out-of-sample constraint satisfaction (top row) and prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average out-of-sample operating cost for decision-calibrated models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average out-of-sample constraint satisfaction (top row) and predictive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average out-of-sample operating cost for decision-calibrated models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Audited Selective Verification for Risk-Controlled N-1 Thermal Contingency Screening under Deployment Shift

    eess.SY 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0

    A randomized audit certifies, with high confidence, that skipped N-1 contingencies violate thermal limits at most a chosen rate even under deployment shift, cutting full AC studies by 29–75% on three test systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Scaling Learning Algorithms Towards

    Bengio, Yoshua and LeCun, Yann , booktitle =. Scaling Learning Algorithms Towards

  2. [2]

    Predict-and-Optimize Robust Unit Commitment With Statistical Guarantees via Weight Combination , year=

    Xie, Rui and Chen, Yue and Pinson, Pierre , journal=. Predict-and-Optimize Robust Unit Commitment With Statistical Guarantees via Weight Combination , year=. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2025.3613360 , publisher=

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2025.3613360 2025

  3. [3]

    Dynamic Reserve Sizing with Statistically Feasible Guarantees: An Uncertainty-Adaptive Robust Optimization Framework , year=

    Ling, Chen and Wu, Chenye , journal=. Dynamic Reserve Sizing with Statistically Feasible Guarantees: An Uncertainty-Adaptive Robust Optimization Framework , year=

  4. [4]

    2013 , publisher=

    Convex bodies: the Brunn--Minkowski theory , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  5. [5]

    and Osindero, Simon and Teh, Yee Whye , journal =

    Hinton, Geoffrey E. and Osindero, Simon and Teh, Yee Whye , journal =. A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets , volume =

  6. [6]

    2016 , publisher=

    Deep learning , author=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  7. [7]

    , journal=

    Dvorkin, Vladimir and Delikaraoglou, Stefanos and Morales, Juan M. , journal=. Setting Reserve Requirements to Approximate the Efficiency of the Stochastic Dispatch , year=

  8. [8]

    Journal of Time Series Analysis , volume=

    On the comparison of interval forecasts , author=. Journal of Time Series Analysis , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  9. [9]

    Predicting structured data , volume=

    A tutorial on energy-based learning , author=. Predicting structured data , volume=

  10. [10]

    Management Science , volume=

    Learning-based robust optimization: Procedures and statistical guarantees , author=. Management Science , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  11. [11]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

    A decision-theoretic approach to interval estimation , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 1972 , publisher=

    1972

  12. [12]

    Joint Granular Model for Load, Solar and Wind Power Scenario Generation , year=

    Carmona, René and Yang, Xinshuo , journal=. Joint Granular Model for Load, Solar and Wind Power Scenario Generation , year=

  13. [13]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=

    Probabilistic guarantees in robust optimization , author=. SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  14. [14]

    Set-Valued Regression of Wind Power Curve , year=

    Shen, Xun , journal=. Set-Valued Regression of Wind Power Curve , year=

  15. [15]

    Graph-Based Large Scale Probabilistic PV Power Forecasting Insensitive to Space-Time Missing Data , year=

    Song, Keunju and Kim, Minsoo and Kim, Hongseok , journal=. Graph-Based Large Scale Probabilistic PV Power Forecasting Insensitive to Space-Time Missing Data , year=

  16. [16]

    Applied Energy , volume=

    Weather-informed probabilistic forecasting and scenario generation in power systems , author=. Applied Energy , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  17. [17]

    2021 , eprint=

    How to Train Your Energy-Based Models , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  18. [18]

    Electric Power Systems Research , volume=

    Covariance structures for high-dimensional energy forecasting , author=. Electric Power Systems Research , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  19. [19]

    Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =

    Salinas, David and Bohlke-Schneider, Michael and Callot, Laurent and Medico, Roberto and Gasthaus, Jan , title =. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , articleno =. 2019 , publisher =

    2019

  20. [20]

    Fifth Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference , year=

    How to Train Your FALCON: Learning Log-Concave Densities with Energy-Based Neural Networks , author=. Fifth Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference , year=

  21. [21]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Input convex neural networks , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2017 , organization=

    2017

  22. [22]

    Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology , volume=

    From probabilistic forecasts to statistical scenarios of short-term wind power production , author=. Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  23. [23]

    Conformal Risk Control , url =

    Angelopoulos, Anastasios and Bates, Stephen and Fisch, Adam and Lei, Lihua and Schuster, Tal , booktitle =. Conformal Risk Control , url =

  24. [24]

    Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates

    Angelopoulos, Anastasios N. and Bates, Stephen , title =. 2023 , issue_date =. doi:10.1561/2200000101 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1561/2200000101 2023

  25. [25]

    2026 , eprint=

    Calibrating Decision Robustness via Inverse Conformal Risk Control , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  26. [26]

    2024 , eprint=

    Non-Exchangeable Conformal Risk Control , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  27. [27]

    IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , volume=

    Two-stage robust unit commitment for co-optimized electricity markets: An adaptive data-driven approach for scenario-based uncertainty sets , author=. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  28. [28]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume=

    Ellipsoidal prediction regions for multivariate uncertainty characterization , author=. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  29. [29]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume=

    Polyhedral predictive regions for power system applications , author=. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  30. [30]

    The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Conformal Robustness Control: A New Strategy for Robust Decision , author=. The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  31. [31]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=

    A sample approximation approach for optimization with probabilistic constraints , author=. SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  32. [32]

    PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library , year =

    Paszke, Adam and Gross, Sam and Massa, Francisco and Lerer, Adam and Bradbury, James and Chanan, Gregory and Killeen, Trevor and Lin, Zeming and Gimelshein, Natalia and Antiga, Luca and Desmaison, Alban and K\". PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library , year =. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Informa...

  33. [33]

    IEEE Transactions on automatic control , volume=

    The scenario approach to robust control design , author=. IEEE Transactions on automatic control , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  34. [34]

    2020 International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS) , pages=

    Chance constraint tuning for optimal power flow , author=. 2020 International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS) , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  35. [35]

    Top , volume=

    Data-driven tuning for chance constrained optimization: analysis and extensions , author=. Top , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  36. [36]

    IEEE Control Systems Letters , volume=

    Data-driven tuning for chance-constrained optimization: Two steps towards probabilistic performance guarantees , author=. IEEE Control Systems Letters , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  37. [37]

    IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy , volume=

    Energy forecasting: A review and outlook , author=. IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  38. [38]

    G-PST Research Agenda 2025 , author=

    2025

  39. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume=

    The IEEE reliability test system: A proposed 2019 update , author=. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  40. [40]

    Reliability Test System - Grid Modernization Lab Consortium

  41. [41]

    IEEE Power and Energy Magazine , volume=

    Robustness: The Missing Ingredient in Generation Scheduling , author=. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  42. [42]

    Constructing Uncertainty Sets From Covariates in Power Systems , year=

    Bertsimas, Dimitris and Koukouvinos, Thodoris and Koulouras, Angelos Georgios , journal=. Constructing Uncertainty Sets From Covariates in Power Systems , year=

  43. [43]

    Uncertainty Set Learning for Adaptive Robust Economic Dispatch , year=

    Gu, Nan and Yuan, Enming and Wu, Chenye , journal=. Uncertainty Set Learning for Adaptive Robust Economic Dispatch , year=

  44. [44]

    2026 , eprint=

    Minimum Volume Conformal Sets for Multivariate Regression , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  45. [45]

    2024 , issn =

    Prescribed robustness in optimal power flow , journal =. 2024 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110704 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110704 2024

  46. [46]

    2025 , eprint=

    Learning Decision-Focused Uncertainty Sets in Robust Optimization , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  47. [47]

    Annals of statistics , pages=

    General notions of statistical depth function , author=. Annals of statistics , pages=. 2000 , publisher=

    2000

  48. [48]

    Proceedings of the Fortieth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , articleno =

    Chenreddy, Abhilash Reddy and Delage, Erick , title =. Proceedings of the Fortieth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , articleno =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  49. [49]

    2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pages=

    Day-ahead estimation of renewable generation uncertainty set for more efficient market clearing , author=. 2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  50. [50]

    2024 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pages=

    Ensembling Wind Forecasting Models to Construct Data-Driven Uncertainty Sets in Robust Optimization , author=. 2024 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  51. [51]

    Statistica Sinica , pages=

    Quantile tomography: using quantiles with multivariate data , author=. Statistica Sinica , pages=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  52. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05898 , year=

    Quantile Surfaces--Generalizing Quantile Regression to Multivariate Targets , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05898 , year=

    work page arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    The Annals of Statistics , pages=

    MULTIVARIATE QUANTILES AND MULTIPLE-OUTPUT REGRESSION QUANTILES: FROM L ₁ OPTIMIZATION TO HALFSPACE DEPTH [with Discussion and Rejoinder] , author=. The Annals of Statistics , pages=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  54. [54]

    Robust and adaptive optimization , author=

  55. [55]

    Bernoulli , year=

    Scoring interval forecasts: Equal-tailed, shortest, and modal interval , author=. Bernoulli , year=

  56. [56]

    Computers & Chemical Engineering , volume=

    Data-driven robust optimization based on kernel learning , author=. Computers & Chemical Engineering , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  57. [57]

    Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction and Applications , pages=

    Conformal uncertainty sets for robust optimization , author=. Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction and Applications , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  58. [58]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Conformalized quantile regression , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  59. [59]

    Journal of the American statistical Association , volume=

    Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation , author=. Journal of the American statistical Association , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  60. [60]

    and Ben Taieb, Souhaib and Li, Siran , title =

    Meng, Xiaochun and Taylor, James W. and Ben Taieb, Souhaib and Li, Siran , title =. Operations Research , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  61. [61]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Data-driven conditional robust optimization , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  62. [62]

    2023 , issn =

    Data-driven robust optimization using deep neural networks , journal =. 2023 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2022.106087 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cor.2022.106087 2023

  63. [63]

    2026 , eprint=

    End-to-End Conformal Calibration for Optimization Under Uncertainty , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  64. [64]

    Mathematical Programming , volume=

    Distributionally robust stochastic programs with side information based on trimmings , author=. Mathematical Programming , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  65. [65]

    Uncertainty Sets for Wind Power Generation , year=

    Dvorkin, Yury and Lubin, Miles and Backhaus, Scott and Chertkov, Michael , journal=. Uncertainty Sets for Wind Power Generation , year=

  66. [66]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

    Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  67. [67]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2017 , organization=

    2017

  68. [68]

    IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , volume=

    Learning convex optimization models , author=. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  69. [69]

    2026 , eprint=

    Copula-Based Aggregation and Context-Aware Conformal Prediction for Reliable Renewable Energy Forecasting , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  70. [70]

    2025 , eprint=

    Enhancing Electricity-System Resilience with Adaptive Robust Optimization and Conformal Uncertainty Characterization , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  71. [71]

    Electric Power Systems Research , volume=

    Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A review of methods and applications , author=. Electric Power Systems Research , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  72. [72]

    2025 , eprint=

    A Conformal Prediction-Based Chance-Constrained Programming Approach for 24/7 Carbon-Free Data Center Operation Scheduling , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  73. [73]

    and Amos, B

    Agrawal, A. and Amos, B. and Barratt, S. and Boyd, S. and Diamond, S. and Kolter, Z. , title=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

  74. [74]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

    Estimation of a convex density contour in two dimensions , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  75. [75]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

    Density level sets: Asymptotics, inference, and visualization , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  76. [76]

    10.2172/2335360

    Solar, Wind, and Load Forecasting Dataset for MISO, NYISO, and SPP Balancing Areas , author=. 2023 , doi = "10.2172/2335360", language = "American English", type = "Other", publisher=

    work page doi:10.2172/2335360 2023

  77. [77]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Adversarially robust learning for security-constrained optimal power flow , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  78. [78]

    2026 , eprint=

    Constructing Deployment Scenarios for Reserve Deliverability via Adaptive Robust Optimization , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  79. [79]

    Energy policy , volume=

    Dynamic dimensioning approach for operating reserves: Proof of concept in Belgium , author=. Energy policy , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  80. [80]

    Proceedings of The 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , series=

    Conformal Contextual Robust Optimization , author=. Proceedings of The 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , series=. 2024 , pages=

    2024

Showing first 80 references.