Uncertainty-Aware Capacity Expansion for Real-World DER Deployment via End-to-End Network Integration

Steven Low; Yiheng Xie; Yiyuan Pan

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Uncertainty-Aware Capacity Expansion for Real-World DER Deployment via End-to-End Network Integration

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid framework that couples a predictive LSTM with a single-stage three-phase robust optimal power flow reduces DER capacity-expansion cost by 8.7% on a real feeder compared with decoupled estimation-then-optimization.

desk verdict The paper overclaims 'unbalanced' but actually assumes balanced voltages in Eq. (15), so the main novelty claim is unsupported; still, the end-to-end conformal calibration plus DistFlow reformulation is a legitimate technical contribution worth a major-revision round. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05956 v1 pith:UUWPTV5F submitted 2024-12-08 eess.SY cs.SY

Yiyuan Pan , Yiheng Xie , Steven Low This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords capacityexpansiondistributedenergyresourcesthree-phaseunbalanceddistributionnetworksrobustoptimizationend-to-endlearningconformalpredictionLSTMoptimalpowerflow

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

Capacity expansion for distributed energy resources (DERs) on real distribution feeders is hard because the grid is three-phase and unbalanced, and because prices and loads are uncertain. This paper tries to solve both at once: it builds a two-stage robust optimization model whose inner dispatch problem uses a three-phase linear DistFlow formulation, then reformulates it into a single-stage differentiable optimization layer using affine policies and a dominant-set approximation of the box uncertainty set. An LSTM predicts price and load uncertainty bounds and is trained end-to-end with that layer, so the optimizer's objective directly shapes the predictor. On a regional grid in Southern California, the hybrid framework reaches a task loss of 623.34 versus 682.91 for the decoupled estimation-then-optimization baseline. The intended consequence is that utilities can use this framework to decide where to install batteries and how to dispatch them under uncertainty, with a quantifiable coverage guarantee.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the combination of a two-stage-to-single-stage reformulation and a differentiable optimization layer. The reformulation eliminates the inner max by setting electricity price to its worst-case maximum $\bar{y}_P$ and by replacing the load-demand uncertainty set with its dominant set $\hat{Y}_D$ (the pointwise maximum of the box), using the affine-policy approximation from Proposition 2 which gives $z(\hat{U}) \le z(U) \le \beta z(\hat{U})$. This turns the problem into the single-stage linear program (19), whose optimal value is the task loss. The balanced-voltage identity $v_j = vc_j A$, derived under Assumption 1.4, linearizes the three-phase voltage matrix and keeps the optimization linear. Gradients for the LSTM come from differentiating through the KKT conditions of (19), while conformal prediction calibrates the box uncertainty set so the robust decisions carry a marginal coverage guarantee.

What would settle it

Apply the framework to a distribution feeder with measured phase imbalance (for example, single-phase laterals or heavily unbalanced rooftop PV) and compare its dispatch decisions and costs against a full three-phase OPF solver. If the balanced-voltage linearization produces infeasible or materially worse decisions on such a feeder, the paper's claim of supporting real-world three-phase unbalanced deployment is falsified. A direct statistical check is also available: run the Southern California experiment over multiple train/test splits and feeders to see whether the reported 8.7% task-loss improvement is consistent or an artifact of one dataset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that end-to-end integration of prediction and optimization outperforms decoupled estimation-then-optimization for DER capacity expansion without sacrificing feasibility or tractability. The paper demonstrates this by (i) modeling the distribution network as a three-phase AC system under the balanced-voltage assumption, which lets the intractable rank-1 voltage constraint be replaced by the linear identity $v_j = vc_j A$; (ii) converting the min-max-min robust problem into a single linear program by fixing price uncertainty at its worst case and replacing load uncertainty with its dominant set $\hat{Y}_D$, with a provable approximation bound; and (iii) differentiating through the KKT conditions of the resulting optimization layer to train the LSTM. On the real Southern California dataset, this yields task loss 623.34 and total loss 964.61, beating the ETO baseline's 682.91 and 1015.53 respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes bus voltages are balanced with exactly 120 degrees between phases, which is the premise that lets the rank-1 voltage matrix constraint become the linear equation $v_j = vc_j A$; on a truly unbalanced feeder this linearization stops being valid and the optimization layer no longer represents the grid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Task-specific training can lower operational cost even when raw prediction accuracy worsens, because the optimization objective focuses the model on decisions that matter.
Conformal calibration gives the robust decisions a formal marginal coverage guarantee, so the capacity plan carries a quantifiable worst-case reliability.
The single-stage differentiable reformulation makes large-scale capacity expansion with three-phase network constraints amenable to gradient-based learning rather than only iterative robust solvers.
Real three-phase feeder data can be used directly to validate DER deployment strategies, not just synthetic single-phase approximations.

Reading between the lines

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

If the balanced-voltage assumption proves too restrictive, a natural extension is to parameterize the linearization by measured phase imbalance or to add a penalty that limits reliance on the linear surrogate at unbalanced buses.
The same predictor-optimizer coupling applies to other planning problems where the downstream decision is a linear program under uncertainty, such as transformer upgrade timing or EV-charging siting.
A multi-feeder benchmark with confidence intervals would clarify whether the observed 8.7% task-loss improvement is statistically robust or specific to this dataset.
The loss-weight parameter $\lambda$ could be chosen by out-of-sample task performance rather than grid search, turning the prediction-accuracy-versus-task-cost trade-off into a scored hyperparameter.

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

Here's my take on arXiv:2412.05956. The headline: the paper overclaims "unbalanced" three-phase modeling, but the actual model assumes balanced voltages. That's not a minor caveat—it's the foundation of the linear reformulation in Eq. (15). So the contribution is a balanced three-phase capacity expansion model with end-to-end conformal calibration, not an unbalanced one.

What is genuinely new: the application of end-to-end conformal calibration from [11] to a DistFlow-based capacity expansion problem, and the reformulation of the voltage constraint for non-invertible admittance matrices (Eqs. 13-15). That reformulation is a real technical step, and the single-stage robust reformulation is clean and well-explained. The paper is clearly written, and the use of real data from Southern California is commendable.

The soft spots, in order of severity:

1. Assumption 1.4 (balanced voltages) directly contradicts the abstract and introduction. Eq. (15) forces v_j = vc_j A, so the model cannot represent any unbalance. The "unbalanced" claim is load-bearing—it's part of the novelty and the real-world relevance. The stress-test is right: the experimental validation cannot show unbalanced capability when the ground truth is generated by the same balanced model.

2. The decision variable x is described as "whether to deploy" but is never constrained to be binary. The formulation has x in R^N, so it's either a sizing variable or a relaxation. The paper should be explicit.

3. The experiment is a single comparison against ETO, with no error bars, no statistical tests, and no sensitivity analysis. The claim of superiority (623.34 vs 682.91) rests on one run. That's thin evidence for a "real-world" conclusion.

4. The dominant-set approximation from [11] is imported without a thorough discussion of monotonicity in this specific context. It probably holds for this problem, but it needs a sentence or two.

The paper is not a breakthrough, but it's a legitimate extension. The balanced assumption undermines the headline, but the underlying framework—end-to-end conformal calibration with a linearized multiphase network model—could be a useful tool if the claims were calibrated.

I would send this to peer review, but the reviewers should ask for a major revision: either develop a proper unbalanced model or revise the claims and validate the balanced model more thoroughly. As it stands, the abstract is misleading.

For a reading group, it's a maybe—useful for people working on end-to-end optimization, less for power-systems folks who'll notice the unbalance issue immediately.

Recommendation: engage with it, but with careful eyes on the assumptions and the experiment.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a capacity-expansion and dispatch framework for distribution networks, combining a two-stage robust optimization model with an LSTM-based predictor in an end-to-end training loop. The optimization model is built on a three-phase DistFlow formulation, uncertainty is encoded as conformally calibrated box sets, and the robust problem is reduced to a single-stage LP to allow gradient computation via KKT differentiation. Experiments on a Southern California dataset report a lower task loss for the proposed end-to-end method than for estimation-then-optimization.

Significance. The paper connects task-based end-to-end training with conformal uncertainty quantification, a timely combination. The use of real utility data and a three-phase network model is a step toward practical capacity expansion. However, the central claimed contribution, an unbalanced three-phase model, is not realized: Assumption 1.4 and Eq. (15) impose balanced voltages. The robust reformulation also collapses the uncertainty set to a single worst-case corner, so the method is closer to conservative point-forecast optimization than to adaptive robust optimization. The conformal and dominant-set results are imported from [11] and [14], so the original theoretical contribution is modest. If the modeling gap were fixed and the experimental validation strengthened, the framework could be useful for DER planning.

major comments (5)

[Section II, Assumption 1.4 and Section II-D, Eq. (15)] The model is balanced, not unbalanced. Assumption 1.4 requires balanced voltages with 120-degree phase separation, and Eq. (15) replaces the rank-1 voltage matrix with v_j = vc_j A for a fixed balanced-sequence matrix A, leaving no degrees of freedom to represent phase imbalance. The abstract's claim that the framework addresses 'three-phase unbalanced AC distribution networks' is therefore unsupported. The Southern California validation also evaluates the task loss under this balanced model, so the reported improvement does not demonstrate performance on unbalanced feeders. Please either develop a genuinely unbalanced model, or re-scope the claims and quantify the voltage unbalance of the test network to justify that it is negligible.
[Section II-E, Eqs. (17)-(19)] The robust reformulation eliminates uncertainty rather than adapting to it. For prices, yP is set to its maximum; for loads, the dominant set with m=1 and k=1 reduces to the single point of coordinate-wise maxima in Eq. (18). Consequently, the 'two-stage robust' problem becomes the deterministic LP (19) at the worst-case corner, with no recourse decisions conditioned on realized uncertainty. This undercuts the distinction from estimation-then-optimization and from [11], where the dominant-set approximation retains multiple scenarios. If worst-case dispatch is the intended model, state this explicitly; otherwise, a non-trivial uncertainty set or a genuine affine policy is needed.
[Section III-B, Eq. (24)] The end-to-end gradient relies on differentiating through the KKT conditions of the LP (19). This is valid only if the LP solution is unique and the Jacobian of the active constraints is nonsingular; the paper neither states nor verifies these regularity conditions, and no KKT system is presented. Capacity-expansion problems with SOC constraints are often degenerate, making the KKT mapping non-differentiable. Please add the complete KKT system, explicit regularity assumptions, and either implementation details or a citation to a differentiable optimization layer. Without this, the training algorithm is not reproducible.
[Section IV, Tables I and II] The reported task-loss improvement (e.g., 623.34 vs 682.91 in Table I) comes from a single experiment with no error bars, multiple random seeds, or statistical tests. The task loss is computed using the same balanced DistFlow model that generated the decisions, so it is a surrogate metric rather than actual operational cost on the real feeder. Furthermore, the paper does not describe a train/test split, and Section IV-A simplifies the network by removing non-electrical components and modeling transformers as equivalent injections. Please provide multiple runs with variance, state the evaluation protocol clearly, and clarify the in-sample versus out-of-sample nature of the results.
[Section II-E, Proposition 1] The proof of the second case (β = m/k) is incorrect as written. The argument that \h\/β ∈ U requires the coordinates of \h\/β to lie in [0,1], which fails when k > m (e.g., \h\ = β e gives \h\/β = (k/m)e with coordinates greater than 1). Since Proposition 1 is stated for general box sets and underpins the 'provable guarantees' discussion, the proof should be corrected or the statement restricted to k ≤ m. The paper's application with m=1 is unaffected, but the general claim is not demonstrated.

minor comments (5)

[Section III heading] The heading 'HYBRID TRANING FRAMEWORK' contains a typo; it should be 'TRAINING'.
[Section II-C] The sentence 'Although the BFM dose not include decision variables...' should read 'does not include'.
[Section II-B, Eq. (7d)] The text says 'Constraint (7d) indicates that the BESS capacity is directly tied to the capacity expansion decisions x,' but Eq. (7d) is the initial SOC condition; the capacity-coupling constraint is (7e).
[Section IV-C] The notation α is used inconsistently. In Definition 2 and Proposition 3, α is the miscoverage level, so larger α means lower confidence. The text says 'As the confidence level α increases' and claims 'larger values of α result in better tasks,' which reverses the meaning. Please clarify or correct the terminology.
[Section IV-C, Figure 3] Figure 3 panels are not described with axis labels or units, and the caption says 'varying confidence α' without defining whether α is the miscoverage level or the confidence level. Please add axis labels and a consistent definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation chain is self-contained, though one scope assumption conflicts with the paper's framing.

full rationale

The paper's derivations do not reduce to their own inputs. The two-stage robust program is converted to a single-stage program using the dominant-set result (Proposition 1 and Proposition 2), which is proved in the text and attributed to the external reference [11]; the conformal coverage guarantee (Proposition 3) is quoted from [14] and is a standard split-conformal statement applied to calibration scores, so it does not assume the paper's conclusions. The three-phase reformulation in Section II-D uses Assumption 1(4) to replace the rank-1 voltage constraint by equation (15), v_j = vc_j A; this is a stated modeling assumption that simplifies the model rather than a circular reintroduction of the target result. The empirical comparison against the estimation-then-optimization (ETO) baseline is a genuine external benchmark: the task loss is the same optimization objective used in training, which is the intended mechanism of end-to-end learning, and the observed task-loss improvement is an experimental result rather than an identity. The only self-citation is [13] (Gan and Low), one of whose coauthors is Steven Low; that reference supplies the underlying DistFlow/BFM constraints, but it is a published, externally checkable result with explicitly stated assumptions, so it does not create load-bearing circularity. A separate validity concern does exist: Assumption 1(4) requires balanced three-phase voltages, and equation (15) fixes the voltage matrix to a balanced-sequence rank-one form, so the model cannot represent unbalanced voltages despite the abstract claiming a '3-phase unbalanced AC distribution network.' That is a correctness and scope limitation, not a circular-derivation step, and it should be weighed in the paper's real-world validation claims rather than in a circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard DistFlow assumptions (radial, lossless, balanced voltages) and the external dominant-set and conformal results from [11] and [14]. The only free hyperparameter that affects the empirical trade-off is the loss weight lambda; the coverage level is a user choice. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Loss weight lambda = 0.8 in main results; 0.7-0.9 recommended
The combined loss L = lambda * Lpred + (1-lambda) * Ltask uses a hand-selected weight to trade off prediction and task performance, tuned on the validation data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Balanced voltages at each bus (Assumption 1.4)
Voltages are assumed to be balanced three-phase sequences, reducing v_j to a rank-1 matrix. This is essential for replacing the intractable rank-1 constraints with linear constraint (15), and it contradicts the claim of modeling unbalanced three-phase systems.
domain assumption Radial network topology (Assumption 1.1)
The DistFlow and the path-based voltage constraint (4d)/(13) rely on tree networks; many real distribution grids are radial, but meshed feeders exist.
domain assumption Negligible line losses (Assumption 1.3)
The lossless assumption simplifies the power flow equations; it is standard in DistFlow but omits losses that can be significant in distribution.
standard math Down-monotone convex uncertainty set (Assumption 2)
Used to apply the dominant-set reformulation from [11] with the stated bound; the box uncertainty set satisfies this condition.
ad hoc to paper The dispatch problem is a linear program with a unique solution, so KKT differentiation is valid
The gradient computation via KKT conditions (Section III-B) requires the optimization layer to be convex with a unique optimum; the paper does not state or prove this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty-Aware Capacity Expansion for Real-World DER Deployment via End-to-End Network Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUWPTV5F

@misc{pith2026241205956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty-Aware Capacity Expansion for Real-World DER Deployment via End-to-End Network Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUWPTV5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05956}
}

read the original abstract

The deployment of distributed energy resource (DER) devices plays a critical role in distribution grids, offering multiple value streams, including decarbonization, provision of ancillary services, non-wire alternatives, and enhanced grid flexibility. However, existing research on capacity expansion suffers from two major limitations that undermine the realistic accuracy of the proposed models: (i) the lack of modeling of three-phase unbalanced AC distribution networks, and (ii) the absence of explicit treatment of model uncertainty. To address these challenges, we develop a two-stage robust optimization model that incorporates a 3-phase unbalanced power flow model for solving the capacity expansion problem. Furthermore, we integrate a predictive neural network with the optimization model in an end-to-end training framework to handle uncertain variables with provable guarantees. Finally, we validate the proposed framework using real-world power grid data collected from our partner distribution system operators. The experimental results demonstrate that our hybrid framework, which combines the strengths of optimization models and neural networks, provides tractable decision-making support for DER deployments in real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05956 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Simplified regional grid topology. constraints on the network predictions, which are typically challenging to impose directly within neural networks. This provides the network with a structured framework, enabling faster convergence during the initial training phase. IV. EXPERIMENTS A. Dataset We evaluate our model using a dataset sourced from Southern California, which includes both weather data and grid data. For… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Predictive efficacy at varying confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[11]

End-to-end conformal calibration for optimization under uncertainty,

C. Yeh, N. Christianson, A. Wu, A. Wierman, and Y . Yue, “End-to-end conformal calibration for optimization under uncertainty,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20534, 2024

arXiv 2024
[14]

Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,

A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, et al. , “Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,” F oundations and Trends® in Machine Learning , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–591, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Two stage robust economic dispatching of microgrid considering uncertainty of wind, solar and electricity load along with carbon emission predicted by neural network model,

H. Shen, H. Zhang, Y . Xu, H. Chen, Z. Zhang, W. Li, X. Su, Y . Xu, and Y . Zhu, “Two stage robust economic dispatching of microgrid considering uncertainty of wind, solar and electricity load along with carbon emission predicted by neural network model,” Energy, vol. 300, p. 131571, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Exploring the modeling capacity of two-stage robust optimization: Variants of robust unit commitment model,

Y . An and B. Zeng, “Exploring the modeling capacity of two-stage robust optimization: Variants of robust unit commitment model,” IEEE transactions on Power Systems , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 109–122, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Capacity expansion of stochastic power generation under two-stage electricity markets,

S. Pineda and J. M. Morales, “Capacity expansion of stochastic power generation under two-stage electricity markets,” Computers & Opera- tions Research, vol. 70, pp. 101–114, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

Optimizing capacity expansion planning: An efficient two-stage stochastic programming solution using lagrangian relaxation,

R. C ´ardenas and E. Gil, “Optimizing capacity expansion planning: An efficient two-stage stochastic programming solution using lagrangian relaxation,” in 2024 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Two-stage stochastic dual dynamic programming for transmission expansion planning with significant re- newable generation and nk criterion,

Z. Wu, P. Zeng, and X.-P. Zhang, “Two-stage stochastic dual dynamic programming for transmission expansion planning with significant re- newable generation and nk criterion,” CSEE Journal of power and energy systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

A two-stage stochastic pro- gramming approach for reliability constrained power system expansion planning,

M. Peker, A. S. Kocaman, and B. Y . Kara, “A two-stage stochastic pro- gramming approach for reliability constrained power system expansion planning,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , vol. 103, pp. 458–469, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 14 references

[7]

Two-stage robust generation expansion planning: A mixed integer linear programming model,

S. Dehghan, N. Amjady, and A. Kazemi, “Two-stage robust generation expansion planning: A mixed integer linear programming model,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 584–597, 2013

2013
[8]

A two-stage coordinated capacity expansion planning model considering optimal portfolios of flexibility resources,

Q. Li, G. Bao, J. Chen, Q. Yang, Z. Liu, H. Liu, and J. Guo, “A two-stage coordinated capacity expansion planning model considering optimal portfolios of flexibility resources,” Energy Reports , vol. 9, pp. 82–94, 2023

2023
[9]

Two-stage robust optimization for expansion planning of active distribution systems coupled with urban transportation networks,

S. Xie, Z. Hu, and J. Wang, “Two-stage robust optimization for expansion planning of active distribution systems coupled with urban transportation networks,” Applied Energy, vol. 261, p. 114412, 2020

2020
[10]

Expansion planning of the transmission network with high penetration of renew- able generation: A multi-year two-stage adaptive robust optimization approach,

´A. Garc ´ıa-Cerezo, L. Baringo, and R. Garc ´ıa-Bertrand, “Expansion planning of the transmission network with high penetration of renew- able generation: A multi-year two-stage adaptive robust optimization approach,” Applied Energy, vol. 349, p. 121653, 2023

2023
[12]

Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization,

P. Donti, B. Amos, and J. Z. Kolter, “Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[13]

Convex relaxations and linear approximation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks,

L. Gan and S. H. Low, “Convex relaxations and linear approximation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks,” in 2014 power systems computation conference , pp. 1–9, IEEE, 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

End-to-end conformal calibration for optimization under uncertainty,

C. Yeh, N. Christianson, A. Wu, A. Wierman, and Y . Yue, “End-to-end conformal calibration for optimization under uncertainty,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20534, 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [14]

Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,

A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, et al. , “Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,” F oundations and Trends® in Machine Learning , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–591, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [1]

Two stage robust economic dispatching of microgrid considering uncertainty of wind, solar and electricity load along with carbon emission predicted by neural network model,

H. Shen, H. Zhang, Y . Xu, H. Chen, Z. Zhang, W. Li, X. Su, Y . Xu, and Y . Zhu, “Two stage robust economic dispatching of microgrid considering uncertainty of wind, solar and electricity load along with carbon emission predicted by neural network model,” Energy, vol. 300, p. 131571, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [2]

Exploring the modeling capacity of two-stage robust optimization: Variants of robust unit commitment model,

Y . An and B. Zeng, “Exploring the modeling capacity of two-stage robust optimization: Variants of robust unit commitment model,” IEEE transactions on Power Systems , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 109–122, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [3]

Capacity expansion of stochastic power generation under two-stage electricity markets,

S. Pineda and J. M. Morales, “Capacity expansion of stochastic power generation under two-stage electricity markets,” Computers & Opera- tions Research, vol. 70, pp. 101–114, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [4]

Optimizing capacity expansion planning: An efficient two-stage stochastic programming solution using lagrangian relaxation,

R. C ´ardenas and E. Gil, “Optimizing capacity expansion planning: An efficient two-stage stochastic programming solution using lagrangian relaxation,” in 2024 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [5]

Two-stage stochastic dual dynamic programming for transmission expansion planning with significant re- newable generation and nk criterion,

Z. Wu, P. Zeng, and X.-P. Zhang, “Two-stage stochastic dual dynamic programming for transmission expansion planning with significant re- newable generation and nk criterion,” CSEE Journal of power and energy systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [6]

A two-stage stochastic pro- gramming approach for reliability constrained power system expansion planning,

M. Peker, A. S. Kocaman, and B. Y . Kara, “A two-stage stochastic pro- gramming approach for reliability constrained power system expansion planning,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , vol. 103, pp. 458–469, 2018

work page 2018