Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Dynamic Transmission Line Switching Amidst Wildfire-Prone Weather Under Decision-Dependent Uncertainty

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multi-stage robust optimization model that reconfigures transmission lines as a wildfire spreads cuts load shedding far below two-stage and no-switching policies, and an adapted decomposition algorithm converges with a certified…

desk verdict Useful application of multi-stage DRO to dynamic line switching under wildfire, but the convergence theorems are unproved and the DDU sampling kernel is non-stationary; fix that gap before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13611 v1 pith:DKO5EVVL submitted 2025-07-18 math.OC

Juan-Alberto Estrada-Garcia , Ruiwei Jiang , Alexandre Moreira This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C1590C11
keywords transmissionlineswitchingwildfiredecision-dependentuncertaintydistributionallyrobustoptimizationmulti-stagestochasticprogrammingnesteddecompositionloadsheddingpowergridresilience
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

During dry, windy weather, a transmission line's chance of failing grows with how much power it carries, so the distribution of line failures depends on the operator's own switching decisions. The paper builds a multi-stage distributionally robust optimization model that reconfigures grid topology at each stage of a wildfire scenario tree, treating line survival probabilities as lying in an ambiguity set bounded by an affine function of the state. It adapts the stochastic nested decomposition algorithm to solve the model, adds a deterministic upper bound so the optimality gap can be certified, and speeds up Lagrangian cut generation by reusing past multipliers. On a realistic California grid with wildfire-perimeter data, the dynamic policy cuts expected load shedding far below both no-switching and two-stage switching plans, and simplified topology and look-up-table policies retain most of that advantage at a fraction of the online computation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the moment ambiguity set $\mathcal{P}_m(x_n)=\{P: \mathbb{E}[\tilde{a}_m] \leq \beta_m x_n + \gamma_m\}$, where $\tilde{a}_m$ is the binary vector of line availabilities, $x_n$ is the state (switching, flows, generation), and $(\beta_m,\gamma_m)$ are calibrated from line and fuel data. It converts the decision-dependent uncertainty into a tractable affine bound on line survival probabilities; Proposition 1 recasts the worst-case expectation as a finite linear program with exponentially many constraints that are separated in polynomial time via Algorithm 1. The algorithm that carries the argument is the stochastic nested decomposition (SND) method, a decomposition approach that refines lower and upper approximations of the cost-to-go function by cutting planes; binary expansion of continuous state variables makes Lagrangian cuts tight, and a deterministic upper bound built from visited states certifies convergence.

What would settle it

Run the proposed dynamic policy on a held-out historical wildfire event with recorded line failure times and switching decisions: if realized load shedding is not below that of the best two-stage plan on the same scenario, the central value-of-dynamics claim fails. A simpler check is to evaluate the affine bound $\beta_m x_n + \gamma_m$ at every visited node of the scenario tree and verify it stays between 0 and 1 and dominates the empirical failure frequencies; a violation at any reachable state would invalidate the worst-case distribution construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that treating line failure as decision-dependent — the survival probability of a line decreases with the magnitude of power flow on it — and optimizing topology dynamically over a scenario tree of wildfire states yields materially lower load shedding than either no switching or a fixed two-stage switching plan. On the California instance, load shedding under the multi-stage robust policy is between 26 and 38 percentage points below the two-stage switching plan and between 47 and 61 points below no switching in out-of-sample and stress tests, while operational cost rises modestly. The authors establish that the adapted stochastic nested decomposition algorithm converges finitely to a global optimum of the binary-expanded model, and that a deterministic upper bound can be computed from the boolean function representation of the value function, so the gap between lower and upper bounds is certified rather than statistical.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that a line's survival probability is accurately bounded by the affine expression $\beta x + \gamma$ for every state the policy can reach; if the calibrated coefficients do not bound the true failure behavior, or if the ambiguity set becomes empty at some state, the robust guarantees and worst-case distributions in the paper are not realized in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators can certify an optimality gap for the dynamic switching policy, because the algorithm produces monotonically decreasing deterministic upper bounds that converge finitely.
  • The dynamic policy outperforms two-stage and no-switching benchmarks on realistic California data, meaning the value of adaptivity is measurable and large for load shedding.
  • The simplified topology and mapping policies, which solve no optimization online, still beat non-adaptive benchmarks, so the approach is deployable under real-time constraints.
  • Sensitivity analysis shows the decision-dependent parameter $\beta$ has a larger effect on the objective than the decision-independent baseline $\gamma$, so ignoring DDU materially distorts the model.
  • The convergence result and cut generation strategies transfer to other multi-stage distributionally robust problems with binary state variables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same SND-with-DDU template applies to other flow-dependent failure settings — gas pipelines, water networks, data routing — where component survival depends on load and an operator can switch topology.
  • The affine ambiguity set is a modeling choice rather than a physical law; a natural extension is to replace it with data-driven bounds such as logistic or kernel-based estimates while preserving the separation algorithm.
  • The mapping policy's look-up table could be trained once and updated as new wildfire-perimeter data arrives, turning the offline-online split into a continuously improving operational tool.
  • A sharp testable extension is to compare dynamic policies that open versus close lines separately, to see whether the load-shedding gains come mostly from de-energizing threatened lines or from rerouting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 multi-stage distributionally robust optimization (DRO) model for dynamic transmission line switching under wildfire-prone weather, where line survival probabilities depend on the power-flow decisions (decision-dependent uncertainty, DDU). The wildfire evolution is represented by a scenario tree, and the line-availability distribution is modeled through a moment ambiguity set whose right-hand side depends affinely on the state. The authors derive a deterministic dual representation of the worst-case expectation (Proposition 1), give a polynomial-time separation procedure when the cost-to-go is piecewise linear (Proposition 2), and characterize a worst-case distribution (Proposition 3). They adapt the stochastic nested decomposition (SND) algorithm to this DDU setting, using binary expansions of continuous state variables, Lagrangian cuts, strengthened Benders cuts, integer optimality cuts, a proposed deterministic upper bound, and a heuristic for reusing cut coefficients. A California-based case study compares the multi-stage policy with two-stage and no-switching benchmarks, reports sensitivity to the DDU/DIU parameters, and constructs two easy-to-implement policies (topology and mapping) with out-of-sample tests.

Significance. If the algorithmic claims hold, the paper makes a substantive contribution: it is one of the few multi-stage DRO formulations for transmission topology control under DDU, and it extends the SND/SDDiP toolbox beyond decision-independent uncertainty. The paper provides proofs for the dual representation and cut validities, a formal error bound for binary expansion, and a realistic numerical study with a publicly available repository, which are all strengths. The main weakness is that the two theorems underpinning the algorithm's convergence and the stopping criterion are stated without proof, and the proof of the error bound contains a feasibility gap; until these are resolved, the numerical claims cannot be regarded as certified optimality of the proposed model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Theorem 1] The finite almost-sure convergence of Algorithm 2 is asserted without proof. The statement that it follows from Theorem 2 of Zou et al. (2019) is not sufficient: in that reference the transition uncertainty is decision-independent, whereas here the forward pass samples the next line-availability state from the worst-case distribution P* of Proposition 3, which is computed from the current lower approximation Q_m. Since Q_m changes every iteration, the sampling kernel is non-stationary, and no argument is given that iterating with a moving kernel still converges to an optimal policy. This is load-bearing because the claim that the policy in Section 5.3 is an optimal solution to model (1) depends on it.
  2. [Section 4.2.1, Theorem 2] The deterministic upper bound is also stated without proof. The boolean-function representation with the large constant M is a finite memorization of visited states, and the assertion that UB decreases and converges finitely to Q1(x0,1) requires showing both that each Q_n(·,·) is a genuine upper bound on Q_n(·,·) for all arguments and that the finite set of visited states eventually covers the optimal path. Neither claim is demonstrated, so the stopping criterion based on the gap between LB and UB is not justified.
  3. [Section 3.2, ambiguity set P_m(x_n)] The ambiguity set P_m(x_n) = {P in P(A_m) : E_P[a_m] <= beta_m x_n + gamma_m} can be empty for some feasible x_n, because beta_m may have negative entries and E_P[a_m] is nonnegative. In that case the supremum in (1a) is over the empty set and the dual derivation in Proposition 1 is invalid (the dual can become unbounded). The paper never states or verifies a nonemptiness condition, and Propositions 1 and 3 rely on feasibility of the primal moment problem. A condition such as requiring beta_m x_n + gamma_m to dominate some point in conv(A_m), or an explicit treatment of empty sets, is needed.
  4. [Appendix A.3, proof of Theorem 3] The induction step of the error-bound proof asserts that, for an optimal solution (x*_n, y*_n), there exists a point (x_n, y_n) in the s-net S(x_n) x S(y_n) that satisfies the same inequality constraints A_n x_n + W_n y_n + C_n x_p(n) + D_n a_n >= h_n. An s-net only guarantees approximation of every point in the box, not that the approximating point is feasible. Since the subsequent inequalities use feasibility of (x_n, y_n), a margin or constraint-qualification argument is required to justify the O(s) bound. Without it, the linear convergence of the binary expansion approximation is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2, Table 3] The column 'Best gap (%)' should specify explicitly how the reference optimal value is computed, since it cannot be the value of the full DRO model unless Theorems 1 and 2 are assumed; otherwise the comparison is not self-contained.
  2. [Section 4.2.3, Algorithm 3] If the set Pi of past cut coefficients becomes empty before the loop terminates, the arg min in line 8 is undefined; the algorithm should specify a fallback (for example, defaulting to the integer optimality cut).
  3. [Section 4.1] In the text following formulation (6), 'relax constraints (6a)–(6a)' should read '(6a)–(6b)'.
  4. [Section 5.3] The caption of Figure 2 uses 'load loss' while the text uses 'load shedding'; please unify the terminology.
  5. [Appendix A.3] The proof of Theorem 3 invokes Hoffman's Lemma without stating the underlying polyhedral set or the norm used; adding these details would make the argument easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DRO derivation is self-contained, the convergence citations are external to the authors, and the numerical claims are benchmarked on out-of-sample and stress-test trees.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The deterministic representation of the worst-case expectation (Proposition 1) is obtained by LP duality from the explicit moment ambiguity set P_m(x_n) = {P : E[a] <= beta_m x_n + gamma_m}, and Propositions 2 and 3 derive the separation procedure and the worst-case distribution P* directly from that representation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: beta and gamma are calibrated from line and fuel data and then deliberately varied in the Section 5.4 sensitivity analysis, which is a model-property study, not an external validation claim. The convergence of Algorithm 2 is attributed to Zou et al. (2019), which is an external algorithm-theoretic result by different authors, not a self-citation; the paper explicitly acknowledges that its DDU transition is a difference from Zou et al., and any concern that the cited theorem does not fully cover the non-stationary sampling kernel is a correctness or proof-completeness gap, not a circular reduction. The self-citations to Moreira et al. (2024) and Pianco et al. (2024) are used to motivate the affine moment ambiguity set as a modeling choice, but the set is explicitly defined and parameterized, so the modeling premise is not smuggled in as an unverifiable prior result. Finally, the main performance claims are evaluated against two-stage and no-switching benchmarks on training, out-of-sample, and stress-test scenario trees, so the reported load-shedding reductions are not forced by construction. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the worst-case distribution P* is a mathematical construction. The main uncharged inputs are the affine ambiguity set parameters, the scenario tree transition probabilities, and the binary expansion precision.

free parameters (5)
  • beta_m (sensitivity of survival probability to state) = Not specified in paper; sensitivity analysis ranges 0.6-1.4
    Defines the DDU component of the ambiguity set in Section 3.2; calibrated from transmission line characteristics, but exact values not given.
  • gamma_m (base survival probability) = Not specified in paper; sensitivity analysis ranges 0.6-1.4
    DIU component of the ambiguity set in Section 3.2; calibrated from fuel data and line characteristics, formula not provided.
  • K (maximum number of line failures) = Not specified
    Defines support A_m as allowing at most K failures; affects the separation algorithm and the feasible set, value not reported.
  • s (binary expansion precision) = 1e-1 or 1e-2 mentioned in Section 4.1
    Controls the approximation of continuous state variables; linear error bound in Theorem 3 depends on s.
  • M (big-M for upper bound) = Initialized via worst-case forward pass (Appendix A.6)
    Used in the deterministic upper bound boolean function; choice affects the tightness of UB, initialization described but not fully specified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Line survival probability is bounded by an affine function of the state x_n
    Section 3.2 defines P_m(x_n) = {P: E[tilde a_m] <= beta_m x_n + gamma_m}. This linear moment bound is the backbone of the DDU model and the dual derivation in Prop. 1.
  • domain assumption The scenario tree T with transition probabilities p_nm adequately represents wildfire propagation
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.2; the tree is generated by a cellular automaton from historical fire perimeters, without dynamic wind or complex propagation, which may be a simplification.
  • domain assumption The DC power flow line switching model (12) is a valid representation of grid operations
    Section 3.2 and Appendix A.1; uses linearized DC power flow, ignores AC losses, voltage stability, and reactive power.
  • domain assumption The moment ambiguity set is nonempty for all encountered x_n
    Proposition 1 dual derivation implicitly assumes primal feasibility; no condition is stated linking beta, gamma, K, and a_parent.
  • standard math Zou et al. (2019) Theorem 2 applies to the adapted SND algorithm
    Theorem 1 is asserted to follow from it but no proof is given in the appendix for the DRO-DDU adaptation.
  • ad hoc to paper Binary expansion with precision s yields an s-net feasible point, giving linear approximation error
    Theorem 3 proof in Appendix A.3 assumes a feasible grid point exists within distance s of the optimum, which is not generally guaranteed for constrained feasible regions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Transmission Line Switching Amidst Wildfire-Prone Weather Under Decision-Dependent Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKO5EVVL

@misc{pith2026250713611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Transmission Line Switching Amidst Wildfire-Prone Weather Under Decision-Dependent Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKO5EVVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13611}
}
read the original abstract

During dry and windy seasons, environmental conditions significantly increase the risk of wildfires, exposing power grids to disruptions caused by transmission line failures. Wildfire propagation exacerbates grid vulnerability, potentially leading to prolonged power outages. To address this challenge, we propose a multi-stage optimization model that dynamically adjusts transmission grid topology in response to wildfire propagation, aiming to develop an optimal response policy. By accounting for decision-dependent uncertainty, where line survival probabilities depend on usage, we employ distributionally robust optimization to model uncertainty in line survival distributions. We adapt the stochastic nested decomposition algorithm and derive a deterministic upper bound for its finite convergence. To enhance computational efficiency, we exploit the Lagrangian dual problem structure for a faster generation of Lagrangian cuts. Using realistic data from the California transmission grid, we demonstrate the superior performance of dynamic response policies against two-stage alternatives through a comprehensive case study. In addition, we construct easy-to-implement policies that significantly reduce computational burden while maintaining good performance in real-time deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scenario tree T of a general discrete stochastic process. (i), statistical upper bounds in Zou et al. (2019) become inapplicable for our DRO model with DDU. As an alternative, we propose deterministic upper bounds, enabling an accurate evaluation of the optimality gap. To improve (ii), existing works have proposed various approaches to generate stronger Lagrangian cuts for binary state variables (see Yang et al. (20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average metric gaps between MS, TS, and NS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of switching decisions between MS and TS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of the MS optimal value in the DDU parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scenario tree generation process We construct the scenario tree in a backwards fashion. We begin by having as many terminal nodes in the last stage, as we have historical fire perimeters in the region. Then, we consider a cellular automaton process, with basic propagat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example topologies for subregion in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Area and topology of test instance . Buses are marked in blue circles, generator in green circles, and transmission lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Wildfire and load data for selected area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Enhancing power system operational resilience against wildfires

    Michael Abdelmalak and Mohammed Benidris. Enhancing power system operational resilience against wildfires. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 58 0 (2): 0 1611--1621, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Impact of wildfires on power systems

    Qasim Al Saeed and Hamidreza Nazaripouya. Impact of wildfires on power systems. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2022 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), pages 1--5. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Resilient expansion planning of electricity grid under prolonged wildfire risk

    Reza Bayani and Saeed D Manshadi. Resilient expansion planning of electricity grid under prolonged wildfire risk. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 14 0 (5): 0 3719--3731, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    The value function of a mixed integer program: I

    Charles E Blair and Robert G Jeroslow. The value function of a mixed integer program: I . Discrete Mathematics, 19 0 (2): 0 121--138, 1977

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    Historic fire perimeters

    California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . Historic fire perimeters. Data set, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, May 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    On generating lagrangian cuts for two-stage stochastic integer programs

    Rui Chen and James Luedtke. On generating lagrangian cuts for two-stage stochastic integer programs. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 34 0 (4): 0 2332--2349, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Power grid vulnerability assessment against wildfires using probabilistic progression estimation model

    Moein Choobineh and Salman Mohagheghi. Power grid vulnerability assessment against wildfires using probabilistic progression estimation model. In 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pages 1--5. IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Integrating wildfires propagation prediction into early warning of electrical transmission line outages

    Songyi Dian, Peng Cheng, Qiang Ye, Jirong Wu, Ruisen Luo, Chen Wang, Dafeng Hui, Ning Zhou, Dong Zou, Qin Yu, et al. Integrating wildfires propagation prediction into early warning of electrical transmission line outages. IEEE Access, 7: 0 27586--27603, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Dynamic line-switching in transmission system operation amidst wildfire-prone weather under decision-dependent uncertainty, 2025

    Juan-Alberto Estrada-Garcia, Ruiwei Jiang, and Alexandre Moreira. Dynamic line-switching in transmission system operation amidst wildfire-prone weather under decision-dependent uncertainty, 2025. Available for download at https://github.com/JestradaG/DynamicLineSwitching

    2025

  2. [10]

    Form 1 - electric utility annual report

    FERC . Form 1 - electric utility annual report. Technical report, Federal Energy Regulatory Commision (FERC), March 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Optimal transmission switching

    Emily B Fisher, Richard P O'Neill, and Michael C Ferris. Optimal transmission switching. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23 0 (3): 0 1346--1355, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Solution strategies for multistage stochastic programming with endogenous uncertainties

    Vijay Gupta and Ignacio E Grossmann. Solution strategies for multistage stochastic programming with endogenous uncertainties. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 35 0 (11): 0 2235--2247, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the pacific northwest, usa

    Jessica E Halofsky, David L Peterson, and Brian J Harvey. Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the pacific northwest, usa. Fire Ecology, 16 0 (1): 0 1--26, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Co-optimization of generation unit commitment and transmission switching with n-1 reliability

    Kory W Hedman, Michael C Ferris, Richard P O'Neill, Emily Bartholomew Fisher, and Shmuel S Oren. Co-optimization of generation unit commitment and transmission switching with n-1 reliability. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25 0 (2): 0 1052--1063, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Scenario tree modeling for multistage stochastic programs

    Holger Heitsch and Werner R \"o misch. Scenario tree modeling for multistage stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 118: 0 371--406, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Computationally efficient formulations for fault isolation and service restoration in distribution systems

    Mohammad Mehdi Hosseini and Masood Parvania. Computationally efficient formulations for fault isolation and service restoration in distribution systems. In 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pages 1--5. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Electrical power unit commitment: deterministic and two-stage stochastic programming models and algorithms

    Yuping Huang, Panos M Pardalos, and Qipeng P Zheng. Electrical power unit commitment: deterministic and two-stage stochastic programming models and algorithms. Springer, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Network hardening and optimal placement of microgrids to improve transmission system resilience: A two-stage linear program

    Kamran Jalilpoor, Arman Oshnoei, Behnam Mohammadi-Ivatloo, and Amjad Anvari-Moghaddam. Network hardening and optimal placement of microgrids to improve transmission system resilience: A two-stage linear program. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 224: 0 108536, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Wildfire danger prediction and understanding with deep learning

    Spyros Kondylatos, Ioannis Prapas, Michele Ronco, Ioannis Papoutsis, Gustau Camps-Valls, Mar \' a Piles, Miguel- \'A ngel Fern \'a ndez-Torres, and Nuno Carvalhais. Wildfire danger prediction and understanding with deep learning. Geophysical Research Letters, 49 0 (17): 0 e202...

    2022

  12. [20]

    The integer L -shaped method for stochastic integer programs with complete recourse

    Gilbert Laporte and Fran c ois V Louveaux. The integer L -shaped method for stochastic integer programs with complete recourse. Operations research letters, 13 0 (3): 0 133--142, 1993

    1993

  13. [21]

    A review of stochastic programming methods for optimization of process systems under uncertainty

    Can Li and Ignacio E Grossmann. A review of stochastic programming methods for optimization of process systems under uncertainty. Frontiers in Chemical Engineering, 2: 0 622241, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Optimal resilient power grid operation during the course of a progressing wildfire

    Salman Mohagheghi and Steffen Rebennack. Optimal resilient power grid operation during the course of a progressing wildfire. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 73: 0 843--852, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Stochastic optimal transmission switching: A novel approach to enhance power grid security margins through vulnerability mitigation under renewables uncertainties

    Seyed Masoud Mohseni-Bonab, Innocent Kamwa, Abbas Rabiee, and CY Chung. Stochastic optimal transmission switching: A novel approach to enhance power grid security margins through vulnerability mitigation under renewables uncertainties. Applied Energy, 305: 0 117851, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Distribution system operation amidst wildfire-prone climate conditions under decision-dependent line availability uncertainty

    Alexandre Moreira, Felipe Pianc \'o , Bruno Fanzeres, Alexandre Street, Ruiwei Jiang, Chaoyue Zhao, and Miguel Heleno. Distribution system operation amidst wildfire-prone climate conditions under decision-dependent line availability uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Power Syst...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Characterizing probability of wildfire ignition caused by power distribution lines

    John W Muhs, Masood Parvania, Hieu T Nguyen, and John A Palmer. Characterizing probability of wildfire ignition caused by power distribution lines. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 36 0 (6): 0 3681--3688, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Optimal resilient transmission grid design

    Harsha Nagarajan, Emre Yamangil, Russell Bent, Pascal Van Hentenryck, and Scott Backhaus. Optimal resilient transmission grid design. In 2016 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), pages 1--7. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Preparatory operation of automated distribution systems for resilience enhancement of critical loads

    Hieu Trung Nguyen, John Muhs, and Masood Parvania. Preparatory operation of automated distribution systems for resilience enhancement of critical loads. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 36 0 (4): 0 2354--2362, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    A time series model for building scenarios trees applied to stochastic optimisation

    Fernando Luiz Cyrino Oliveira, Reinaldo Castro Souza, and Andr \'e Lu \' s Marques Marcato. A time series model for building scenarios trees applied to stochastic optimisation. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 67: 0 315--323, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    On the value of binary expansions for general mixed-integer linear programs

    Jonathan H Owen and Sanjay Mehrotra. On the value of binary expansions for general mixed-integer linear programs. Operations Research, 50 0 (5): 0 810--819, 2002

    2002

  22. [30]

    Multi-stage stochastic optimization applied to energy planning

    Mario VF Pereira and Leontina MVG Pinto. Multi-stage stochastic optimization applied to energy planning. Mathematical Programming, 52: 0 359--375, 1991

    1991

  23. [31]

    Decision-dependent uncertainty-aware distribution system planning under wildfire risk

    Felipe Pianc \'o , Alexandre Moreira, Bruno Fanzeres, Ruiwei Jiang, Chaoyue Zhao, and Miguel Heleno. Decision-dependent uncertainty-aware distribution system planning under wildfire risk. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04350, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Study on the breakdown characteristics of the transmission line gap under forest fire conditions

    Zi Pu, Jiang Ruan, Dao Huang, Tian Wu, and Peng Li. Study on the breakdown characteristics of the transmission line gap under forest fire conditions. International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, 25 0 (11): 0 2731--2744, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Energy management system for smart grid: An overview and key issues

    Sumit K Rathor and Dipti Saxena. Energy management system for smart grid: An overview and key issues. International Journal of Energy Research, 44 0 (6): 0 4067--4109, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Nurse staffing under absenteeism: A distributionally robust optimization approach

    Minseok Ryu and Ruiwei Jiang. Nurse staffing under absenteeism: A distributionally robust optimization approach. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Evaluating the resilience of electrical power line outages caused by wildfires

    Hamid R Sayarshad and Romina Ghorbanloo. Evaluating the resilience of electrical power line outages caused by wildfires. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 240: 0 109588, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    California test system (cats): A geographically accurate test system based on the california grid

    Sofia Taylor, Aditya Rangarajan, Noah Rhodes, Jonathan Snodgrass, Bernie Lesieutre, and Line A Roald. California test system (cats): A geographically accurate test system based on the california grid. IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Managing wildfire risks: Protection system technical developments combined with operational advances to improve public safety

    Eric A Udren, Chris Bolton, Dan Dietmeyer, Tariq Rahman, and Sergio Flores-Castro. Managing wildfire risks: Protection system technical developments combined with operational advances to improve public safety. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 20 0 (1): 0 64--77, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    A coordinated reconfiguration strategy for multi-stage resilience enhancement in integrated power distribution and heating networks

    Ke Wang, Yixun Xue, Qinglai Guo, Mohammad Shahidehpour, Quan Zhou, Bin Wang, and Hongbin Sun. A coordinated reconfiguration strategy for multi-stage resilience enhancement in integrated power distribution and heating networks. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 14 0 (4): 0 2709-...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Multi-period power system risk minimization under wildfire disruptions

    Hanbin Yang, Noah Rhodes, Haoxiang Yang, Line Roald, and Lewis Ntaimo. Multi-period power system risk minimization under wildfire disruptions. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2024 a

    2024

  32. [40]

    Multistage stochastic program for mitigating power system risks under wildfire disruptions

    Hanbin Yang, Haoxiang Yang, Noah Rhodes, Line Roald, and Lewis Ntaimo. Multistage stochastic program for mitigating power system risks under wildfire disruptions. Electric Power Systems Research, 234: 0 110773, 2024 b

    2024

  33. [41]

    Multistage distributionally robust mixed-integer programming with decision-dependent moment-based ambiguity sets

    Xian Yu and Siqian Shen. Multistage distributionally robust mixed-integer programming with decision-dependent moment-based ambiguity sets. Mathematical Programming, 196 0 (1): 0 1025--1064, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Two-stage distributionally robust optimal power flow with flexible loads

    Yiling Zhang, Siqian Shen, Bowen Li, and Johanna L Mathieu. Two-stage distributionally robust optimal power flow with flexible loads. In 2017 IEEE Manchester PowerTech, pages 1--6. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Multistage stochastic unit commitment using stochastic dual dynamic integer programming

    Jikai Zou, Shabbir Ahmed, and Xu Andy Sun. Multistage stochastic unit commitment using stochastic dual dynamic integer programming. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34 0 (3): 0 1814--1823, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Stochastic dual dynamic integer programming

    Jikai Zou, Shabbir Ahmed, and Xu Andy Sun. Stochastic dual dynamic integer programming. Mathematical Programming, 175: 0 461--502, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.