Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Large Language Model Powered Automated Modeling and Optimization of Active Distribution Network Dispatch Problems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a coordinated team of three specialized LLM agents can convert plain-English active distribution network dispatch requests into executable optimization code with near-perfect accuracy on tested cases.

desk verdict A clearly built LLM pipeline for ADN dispatch with honest ablations, but the evaluation stops short of proving the generated models are correct—worth reviewing, not dismissing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21162 v1 pith:WGVE7H5A submitted 2025-07-25 cs.AI cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

Xu Yang , Chenhui Lin , Yue Yang , Qi Wang , Haotian Liu , Haizhou Hua , Wenchuan Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
keywords activedistributionnetworkdispatchoptimizationlargelanguagemodelmulti-agentLLMcoordinationretrieval-augmentedgenerationfew-shotlearningautomatedmodelingnaturaltocode
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that a non-expert operator of an active distribution network can go from a natural-language request, such as “minimize tomorrow's operational costs,” to a solver-ready optimization model and executable code without human modeling or programming help. It decomposes the human expert workflow into three LLM agents: an Information Extractor that structures the request, a Problem Formulator that builds the constrained optimization problem in math form, and a Code Programmer that writes code in the PyOptInterface modeling language. On its 30 test requests, the full pipeline produced executable code on 98% of first attempts with one model and 93% with another, and on 100% of requests within three attempts. If true, this matters because it would substantially lower the expertise barrier for the newly integrated distribution-network operators who currently depend on expensive specialists.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-stage decomposition of the human expert workflow, mirrored by three LLM agents. The Information Extractor uses structured prompts (role, task, environment, output decorators, few-shot examples, chain-of-thought guidance) to convert colloquial requests into tagged structured requirements. The Problem Formulator builds the optimization problem in six predefined dialogue rounds: objective, equipment constraints, power flow via the Distflow equations with second-order cone relaxation, additional constraints, symbol unification, and convexification. The Code Programmer receives the math model plus external knowledge, including case-format explanations and PyOptInterface documentation, and dynamically retrieved few-shot examples selected by cosine similarity of the math-expression embeddings. The Distflow equations and the second-order cone relaxation supply the domain backbone that the agents are instructed to reproduce.

What would settle it

Take an independent set of dispatch requests written by operators who did not see the paper's examples, covering districts, equipment, and phrasings outside the three test systems, and run the full pipeline on them; if first-attempt executability falls substantially below the reported 0.93–0.98, or human expert ratings no longer approach full marks, the claimed capability is benchmark-specific. A simpler check is to compute the cosine similarity between each test request's math formulation and its nearest retrieval-database example; near-duplicates would confirm retrieval rather than generation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a natural-language dispatch request can be carried end-to-end to a solver-ready, executable optimization model by three cooperating LLM agents, each assigned a single step of the human expert workflow and each supplied with targeted external knowledge. The authors report that the complete “Full” pipeline achieves near-perfect human-expert ratings on both problem formulation and code quality, with first-attempt code executability of 0.98 (qwen-plus) and 0.93 (qwen2.5-72b), and 100% executability within three attempts; removing any architectural component or enhancement clearly degrades these results. Notably, removing few-shot examples drops first-attempt executability to zero, while removing external knowledge or the Information Extractor causes large falls in both ratings and pass rates.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the 30 test requests are genuinely new problems rather than close variants of the human-written examples embedded in prompts or retrieved by the RAG database, so that high pass rates mean generalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Newly integrated distribution-network operators could obtain a working dispatch model from a plain-English request without hiring modeling or programming experts.
  • The Information Extractor is necessary for accurate problem formulation; removing it causes misrecognition of objectives and constraints in the generated models.
  • The Problem Formulator is necessary for reliable code generation; generating code directly from natural language degrades performance more than removing other components.
  • Few-shot examples are essential for complex code generation; without them the pipeline produced no executable code in these tests.
  • Unfamiliar, domain-specific modeling languages can be handled when external knowledge and retrieved examples are supplied to the code-generation agent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 30 test requests were authored by the same research group that wrote the few-shot and retrieval example database; until an independent test set is used, the near-perfect numbers should be read as an upper bound on real-world generalization.
  • A concrete way to test the generalization claim would be to compute embedding similarity between each test request and its nearest retrieval-database example; near-duplicates would indicate retrieval rather than genuine generation.
  • The same three-agent decomposition could likely be adapted to other regulated optimization tasks, such as transmission dispatch or gas-network operation, by replacing the modeling-knowledge base and code templates.
  • The observed sharp performance drop as model size falls from 14b to 7b suggests a practical research direction: distilling the pipeline's skills into smaller, cheaper models for deployment by resource-constrained operators.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-LLM coordination architecture that automatically transforms natural-language active distribution network (ADN) dispatch requests into executable optimization code. The architecture consists of three agents: an Information Extractor that converts colloquial requests into structured requirements, a Problem Formulator that builds the optimization problem in mathematical form through multi-round dialogues, and a Code Programmer that generates code using external knowledge about the case format and the PyOptInterface modeling language, augmented with RAG-based dynamic few-shot examples. The authors evaluate the method on 30 self-designed dispatch requests across three test districts (IEEE 33-, 69-, and 141-bus systems) using qwen-plus and qwen2.5-72b, reporting human expert scores for problem formulation and code programming, pass@k rates for code executability, and an end-to-end demonstration showing voltage regulation and a 12.6% loss reduction. Ablation studies isolate the contributions of each agent and each enhancement method.

Significance. If the claimed performance holds, the paper addresses a real and timely problem: lowering the expertise barrier for ADN operators in modeling and solving dispatch optimization problems. The proposed decomposition into extraction, formulation, and coding stages is sensible and follows human expert practice. The method incorporates several credible ideas, including structured prompting, multi-round dialogue for incremental problem construction, and RAG-assisted few-shot learning with a domain-specific modeling language. The ablation design is thoughtful, and the use of two LLMs and multiple parameter scales provides useful evidence about scalability. However, the current evaluation does not yet establish the central claim that the generated code correctly and optimally solves the intended dispatch problems. The pass@k metric only tests executability, the human scoring rubric is coarse and unvalidated, and the potential overlap between test requests and the example database is not assessed. With stronger evaluation, the contribution would be significant for the power-systems LLM community.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A, pass@k and scoring] The central claim that the pipeline produces correct dispatch models is not established because pass@k only tests code executability, and the human scoring is a coarse 20/10/0 rubric without inter-rater agreement, blinding, or comparison to a reference solution. The paper itself states that "the pass rates only measure the code's executability rather than correctness" (Section IV.A), and Section IV.C acknowledges "symbol inaccuracies and adding/removing a term during modeling" for the Full method; these errors can change the dispatch solution, yet the method still receives near-full scores. Please add an independent check of solution quality, for example by verifying that generated code reproduces a known-optimal solution on a subset of cases, and report inter-rater agreement or a second independent annotator for the human scores.
  2. [Sections III.D and IV.A, example overlap and leakage] The test requests are designed by the authors and the few-shot/RAG examples are pre-written by human experts, but no overlap statistics or content summaries are reported. If the 30 test requests are close to the RAG or few-shot examples, the high pass@k and near-full scores could reflect retrieval of near-identical examples rather than generalization to unseen dispatch requests. Please report similarity distributions between the test requests and the example database, and ideally construct a held-out test set written by independent domain experts who did not contribute to the prompt examples.
  3. [Section IV.B, end-to-end demonstration] The single end-to-end example shows voltage improvement and a 12.6% loss reduction, but it does not demonstrate equivalence to an expert-formulated model or that the solution is optimal and feasible as intended. Without comparing the generated model's dispatch decisions to a reference implementation or a known optimum, the claim that the generated code "solves the intended dispatch problem" is unsupported. Please add quantitative comparisons of objective values and constraint violations against an expert baseline model for the test cases, not just executability.
  4. [Section IV.C and Tables II-III, statistical reporting] All results are averages over 90 runs (three seeds per request), but no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Since LLM outputs are stochastic and the rubric is subjective, the claim that "Full achieves excellent performance close to the full score" needs at least standard deviations or per-request score distributions. Please report error bars or the full distribution of scores and pass rates to assess the stability of the differences between methods.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (16)] The state-of-charge update equation appears to use the maximum charging/discharging power limits instead of the decision variables; please correct the notation to use P_{i,t}^{BESS,dis} and P_{i,t}^{BESS,cha}.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (24)] The power-loss objective is written as min sum over buses of P_{i,t}, which is ambiguous; please define explicitly that the objective is branch active power losses and use the appropriate branch loss expression.
  3. [Section IV.A, pass@k definitions] The definitions of pass@1 and pass@3 mix per-run and per-request aggregation; please clarify that pass@1 is computed over 90 individual runs while pass@3 is computed per request across the three runs, or adopt the standard pass@k estimator with sampled generations.
  4. [Table III] The qwen2.5-3b row contains only '-' entries; please state explicitly that this model failed to produce any usable formulations or executable code, rather than leaving the reader to infer missing results.
  5. [Section IV.A, scoring criterion] The scoring rubric is attributed to reference [12]; please clarify whether the rubric was adapted for this paper and how the same 20/10/0 criterion was applied separately to problem formulation and code programming outputs.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Formulation scores are graded against the same equations inserted into the prompts, so the near-full 'Full' scores are partly self-referential rather than independently validated.

  1. self definitional [Section II.A (final paragraph), Section III.C (Dialogue 1), Section IV.A (scoring mechanism)]
    "All of the above modeling knowledge is incrementally fed into Problem Formulator, whose details are described in Section III. ... we implement a scoring mechanism by human experts for the problem formulation results, dividing the full score of 100 into five 20-point parts: 1) objective function score; 2) equipment constraints score; 3) power flow constraints score; 4) additional constraints score; and 5) convexification score."

    The problem-formulation score's ground truth is exactly the knowledge base inserted into the prompts. Section III.C states that each dialogue round embeds the relevant equations (objective, equipment, power flow, additional constraints, relaxation) from Section II, and Section IV.A then partitions the 100-point score into those same five categories. Therefore a high PF/CP score means the LLM reproduced the supplied equations, not that the formulation was independently validated against an external standard. Since the same human experts also authored the 30 test requests and the RAG examples, the 'correct' answer and the examples are drawn from the same source, so the near-full scores are partly defined by the input rather than derived from an independent target.

full rationale

Aside from the self-referential formulation rubric, I find no load-bearing circularity. The cited prior work by the authors ([18], [25]) supplies a modeling-language tool and an earlier RL-LLM study but is not used to justify the architecture's effectiveness; no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The pass@k claims are explicitly limited to executability, and the end-to-end case provides an independent behavioral check. The absence of overlap statistics between the 30 author-designed test requests and the human-written RAG/few-shot examples is a benchmark-design limitation and a potential leakage risk, but it is not a demonstrated reduction of the results to the inputs. Scaling results across qwen2.5 sizes and the large drops of No-EK/No-FS are internal ablations that do not depend on circular reasoning. Score 4 reflects the one self-definitional evaluation step; the core engineering claim retains independent content through the code-execution and dispatch-demonstration evidence.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on standard power-flow modeling assumptions, a self-designed benchmark, and a coarse human scoring rubric. The key engineering choices (temperature, top-p, example counts, RAG top-k) are fixed without sensitivity analysis, and the evaluation depends on assumptions about representativeness and absence of leakage between the test requests and the few-shot/RAG database.

free parameters (5)
  • Temperature = 0.6
    LLM sampling temperature set to 0.6 and not varied in ablation.
  • Top-p = 0.7
    Nucleus sampling parameter set to 0.7 and not varied.
  • Number of few-shot examples = 3 to 5 for Info Extractor, 3 for Code Programmer
    Chosen by authors; no systematic study of the effect of example count.
  • Embedding model dimension = 1024
    text-embedding-v3 output dimension; fixed choice.
  • RAG retrieval top-k = 3
    Three most similar examples are selected; no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Distflow model (eq. 1-5) and its SOCP relaxation (eq. 6) are valid for radial ADN dispatch.
    Standard in power systems; the paper relies on it without proof.
  • domain assumption The 30 hand-designed requests across 33-, 69-, and 141-bus systems are representative of real ADN dispatch scenarios.
    The paper asserts versatility but provides no external validation that the test set covers the diversity of real operator requests.
  • domain assumption Human expert scoring with the 20/10/0 rubric is a reliable measure of formulation correctness.
    The paper acknowledges human bias and uses a coarse rubric (Section IV.A).
  • ad hoc to paper The RAG example database and the test requests are sufficiently disjoint to avoid leakage.
    Both are authored by the same team; no overlap statistics are reported (Section III.D and IV.A).
  • domain assumption LLM outputs at fixed temperature/top-p and three seeds are representative of the method's performance.
    The paper averages 90 tests but does not report variance or test for seed sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Language Model Powered Automated Modeling and Optimization of Active Distribution Network Dispatch Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGVE7H5A

@misc{pith2026250721162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Language Model Powered Automated Modeling and Optimization of Active Distribution Network Dispatch Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGVE7H5A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21162}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing penetration of distributed energy resources into active distribution networks (ADNs) has made effective ADN dispatch imperative. However, the numerous newly-integrated ADN operators, such as distribution system aggregators, virtual power plant managers, and end prosumers, often lack specialized expertise in power system operation, modeling, optimization, and programming. This knowledge gap renders reliance on human experts both costly and time-intensive. To address this challenge and enable intelligent, flexible ADN dispatch, this paper proposes a large language model (LLM) powered automated modeling and optimization approach. First, the ADN dispatch problems are decomposed into sequential stages, and a multi-LLM coordination architecture is designed. This framework comprises an Information Extractor, a Problem Formulator, and a Code Programmer, tasked with information retrieval, optimization problem formulation, and code implementation, respectively. Afterwards, tailored refinement techniques are developed for each LLM agent, greatly improving the accuracy and reliability of generated content. The proposed approach features a user-centric interface that enables ADN operators to derive dispatch strategies via simple natural language queries, eliminating technical barriers and increasing efficiency. Comprehensive comparisons and end-to-end demonstrations on various test cases validate the effectiveness of the proposed architecture and methods.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Active Distribution Network Expansion Planning With Dynamic Thermal Rating of Underground Cables and Transformers,

    Y. Li, Q. Chen, G. Strbac, K. Hur and C. Kang, “Active Distribution Network Expansion Planning With Dynamic Thermal Rating of Underground Cables and Transformers,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 218-232, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Reinforcement Learning with Enhanced Safety for Optimal Dispatch of Distributed Energy Resources in Active Distribution Networks,

    X. Yang et al., “Reinforcement Learning with Enhanced Safety for Optimal Dispatch of Distributed Energy Resources in Active Distribution Networks,” Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1484-1494, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Reliability Evaluation of Active Distribution Systems Including Microgrids,

    Z. Bie, P. Zhang, G. Li, B. Hua, M. Meehan and X. Wang, “Reliability Evaluation of Active Distribution Systems Including Microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2342-2350, Nov. 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Coordinated Frequency Regulation of Active Distribution Networks Considering Dimension-Augmented Power Flow Constraints,

    J. Zhai, L. Guo, Z. Wang, X. Li, Y. Liu and C. Wang, “Coordinated Frequency Regulation of Active Distribution Networks Considering Dimension-Augmented Power Flow Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 138-148, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Decentralized Active Power Management in Multi-Agent Distribution Systems Considering Congestion Issue,

    M. Tofighi-Milani, S. Fattaheian-Dehkordi, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad and M. Lehtonen, “Decentralized Active Power Management in Multi-Agent Distribution Systems Considering Congestion Issue,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3582-3593, Sep. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Integrated Distribution Management System: Architecture, Functions, and Application in China,

    W. Wu et al., “Integrated Distribution Management System: Architecture, Functions, and Application in China,” Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 245-258, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A Reinforcement Learning-Based Decision System for Electricity Pricing Plan Selection by Smart Grid End Users,

    T. Lu, X. Chen, M. B. McElroy, C. P. Nielsen, Q. Wu and Q. Ai, “A Reinforcement Learning-Based Decision System for Electricity Pricing Plan Selection by Smart Grid End Users,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2176-2187, May 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Exploring ChatGPT Capabilities and Limitations: A Survey,

    A. Koubaa, W. Boulila, L. Ghouti, A. Alzahem and S. Latif, “Exploring ChatGPT Capabilities and Limitations: A Survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 118698-118721, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    GPT-4 technical report,

    OpenAI, “GPT-4 technical report,” arXiv: 2303.08774, Mar. 2024, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Large Language Model for Smart Inverter Cyber-Attack Detection via Textual Analysis of Volt/VAR Commands,

    A. Selim, J. Zhao and B. Yang, “Large Language Model for Smart Inverter Cyber-Attack Detection via Textual Analysis of Volt/VAR Commands,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 6179-6182, Nov. 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    On the Potential of ChatGPT to Generate Distribution Systems for Load Flow Studies Using OpenDSS,

    R. S. Bonadia, F. C. L. Trindade, W. Freitas and B. Venkatesh, “On the Potential of ChatGPT to Generate Distribution Systems for Load Flow Studies Using OpenDSS,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5965-5968, Nov. 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Enhancing LLMs for Power System Simulations: A Feedback-driven Multi-agent Framework,

    M. Jia, Z. Cui, and G. Hug, “Enhancing LLMs for Power System Simulations: A Feedback-driven Multi-agent Framework,” arXiv:2411.16707, May 2025, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16707

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Exploring the capabilities and limitations of large language models in the electric energy sector,

    S. Majumder, L. Dong, F. Doudi et al., “Exploring the capabilities and limitations of large language models in the electric energy sector,” Joule, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1544-1549, Jun. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Large foundation models for power systems,

    C. Huang, S. Li, R. Liu et al., “Large foundation models for power systems,” arXiv: 2312.07044, Dec. 2023, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07044

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    ElecBench: a Power Dispatch Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models,

    X. Zhou, H. Zhao, Y, Cheng et al., “ElecBench: a Power Dispatch Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models,” arXiv: 2407.05365, Aug. 2024, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05365

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Applying Large Language Models to Power Systems: Potential Security Threats,

    J. Ruan et al., “Applying Large Language Models to Power Systems: Potential Security Threats,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 3333-3336, May 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Real-Time Optimal Power Flow With Linguistic Stipulations: Integrating GPT-Agent and Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    Z. Yan and Y. Xu, “Real-Time Optimal Power Flow With Linguistic Stipulations: Integrating GPT-Agent and Deep Reinforcement Learning,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4747-4750, Mar. 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    RL2: Reinforce Large Language Model to Assist Safe Reinforcement Learning for Energy Management of Active Distribution Networks,

    X. Yang, C. Lin, H. Liu and W. Wu, “RL2: Reinforce Large Language Model to Assist Safe Reinforcement Learning for Energy Management of Active Distribution Networks,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, early access

  11. [19]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” 2025, [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com/documentation

    2025

  12. [20]

    CPLEX Optimizers,

    IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio, “CPLEX Optimizers,” 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/docs

    2024

  13. [21]

    cuPDLP-C: A Strengthened Implementation of cuPDLP for Linear Programming by C language,

    H. Lu, J. Yang, H. Hu et al., “cuPDLP-C: A Strengthened Implementation of cuPDLP for Linear Programming by C language,” arXiv:2312.14832, Jan. 2024, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14832

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  15. [23]

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans et al., “Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 24824-24837, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,

    P. S. H. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus et al., “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459-9474, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    PyOptInterface: Design and implementation of an efficient modeling language for mathematical optimization,

    Y. Yang, C. Lin, L. Xu et al., “PyOptInterface: Design and implementation of an efficient modeling language for mathematical optimization,” arXiv: 2405.10130, May 2024, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10130

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    New method for the analysis of distribution networks,

    R. G. Cespedes, “New method for the analysis of distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 391–396, Jan. 1990

    1990

  19. [27]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar et al., “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017, no. 30

    2017

  20. [28]

    Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models,

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao et al., “Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models,” in Conference on Robot Learning, 2023, pp. 1769-1782

    2023

  21. [29]

    Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

    A. Brohan, Y. Chebotar, C. Finn et al., “Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Conference on robot learning, 2023, pp. 287-318

    2023

  22. [30]

    Do embodied agents dream of pixelated sheep: Embodied decision making using language guided world modelling,

    K. Nottingham, P. Ammanabrolu, A. Suhr et al., “Do embodied agents dream of pixelated sheep: Embodied decision making using language guided world modelling,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023, pp. 26311-26325

    2023

  23. [31]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code,

    M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun et al., “Evaluating large language models trained on code,” arXiv:2107.03374, Jul. 2021, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Supplementary files for Large Language Model Powered Automated Modeling and Optimization of Active Distribution Network Dispatch Problems,

    X. Yang et al., “Supplementary files for Large Language Model Powered Automated Modeling and Optimization of Active Distribution Network Dispatch Problems,” Jun. 2025, [Online]. Available: https://github.com/YangXuSteve/LLM-Modeling-and-Optimization

    2025

  25. [33]

    Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,

    M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, “Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1401–1407, Apr. 1989

    1989

  26. [34]

    Optimal placement of capacitors in radial distribution system using a fuzzy-ga method,

    D. Das, “Optimal placement of capacitors in radial distribution system using a fuzzy-ga method,” International journal of electrical power & energy systems, vol. 30, no. 6–7, pp. 361–367, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Maximum savings approach for location and sizing of capacitors in distribution systems,

    H. M. Khodr, F. G. Olsina, P. M. De Oliveira-De Jesus, and J. M. Yusta, “Maximum savings approach for location and sizing of capacitors in distribution systems,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 78, no. 7, pp. 1192-1203, Jul. 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.