pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02151 · v1 · pith:TYXD6FE2new · submitted 2026-06-01 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.SY· eess.SY

S3TS: Stochastic Scenario-Structured Tree Search for Advanced Planning Under Uncertainty

Fabio Pavirani , Bert Claessens , Pierre Pinson , Chris Develder This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 14:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.SYeess.SY
keywords scenario treetree searchstochastic planningdemand responseenergy optimizationuncertaintynon-linear modelsMonte Carlo tree search
0
0 comments X

The pith

S3TS structures tree search around scenario trees to handle both uncertainty and non-linear models in planning.

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

The paper develops S3TS to address planning tasks that must accommodate non-linear system models while explicitly representing uncertainty from sources such as renewable generation. It does so by building the search tree on scenario structures that capture possible futures and by evaluating non-linear models at the nodes. Tested on a simulated demand response signal publication problem that mimics Belgian imbalance settlement, the method reaches costs within 14 percent of the optimal solution given the trees in linear cases and delivers cost reductions of up to 51 percent versus myopic search and 5.4 percent versus deterministic MCTS in non-linear cases. A reader would care because energy scheduling that jointly manages complexity and uncertainty can improve grid reliability and asset use when renewables are present.

Core claim

S3TS explicitly represents uncertainty through scenario trees while enabling the integration of advanced non-linear models. In linear analytically tractable settings it produces costs within 14 percent of the mathematically optimal solution conditioned on the scenario trees. In highly non-linear scenarios it achieves cost reductions of up to 51 percent relative to a myopic algorithm and 5.4 percent relative to deterministic MCTS on a simulated demand response signal publication problem.

What carries the argument

Stochastic Scenario-Structured Tree Search (S3TS) algorithm, which organizes the tree search around discrete scenarios to represent uncertainty and permits direct evaluation of non-linear models inside the search.

If this is right

  • In linear analytically tractable settings S3TS reaches costs within 14 percent of the mathematically optimal solution given the scenario trees.
  • In highly non-linear scenarios S3TS reduces costs by up to 51 percent compared with a myopic algorithm.
  • In highly non-linear scenarios S3TS reduces costs by up to 5.4 percent compared with deterministic MCTS.
  • The method supplies a single algorithmic framework that simultaneously addresses non-linearity and uncertainty, removing the need to choose between separate families of techniques.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same scenario-structured search pattern could be applied to other sequential decision problems that combine non-linear dynamics with exogenous uncertainty, such as inventory control under demand volatility.
  • Performance may improve if scenario generation itself is learned from data rather than fixed in advance, though the paper does not test this extension.
  • Larger scenario trees would increase fidelity to the underlying stochastic process at the expense of higher computation per decision epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated demand response signal publication problem and the scenario trees employed adequately represent the uncertainties and non-linearities of real energy planning without systematic bias.

What would settle it

Running S3TS on a non-linear instance whose true optimal cost (conditioned on the same scenario trees) is known by other means and checking whether the reported cost gap holds would directly test the performance claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02151 by Bert Claessens, Chris Develder, Fabio Pavirani, Pierre Pinson.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Response function ℎ(𝜆; 𝑡) describing the actors’ in￾fluence over the system in the non-linear problem formulation, plotted at five values of 𝑡 within a settlement period. Curves at different 𝑡 correspond to different temporal scalings 𝜑(𝑡), leading to different effective steepness of the spatial shape. problems can in principle be encoded in modern solvers (e.g., Gurobi [10]), obtaining their global soluti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Four phases repeated at each timestep to use the S3TS algorithm. First, the random distribution underneath the stochastic process gets approximated (phase 1). Then, using the approximated distribution, a certain number of scenarios are sampled from it (phase 2). The scenarios get aggregated in a scenario tree (phase 3) that is then optimized using the S3TS algorithm (phase 4), obtaining the optimal action … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of a scenario tree with horizon 3 returned by the recursive calls are aggregated into a single probability-weighted estimate, which is backpropagated up the tree to update the 𝑄tree value of the selected action via Eq. (16). When the recursion reaches a state node that has not yet been expanded, the algorithm grows the tree at that point. For each available action, it adds a scenario node and, for … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: corresponding to the scenario tree in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the random distribution used to generate the SI fluctuations in our experiments. The distribution is approximated through Monte Carlo sampling, and different quantiles are visualized in the figure. with the latest information, and only the upcoming action is applied before the iteration repeats. 4.2. Baselines The evaluation compares six techniques that span three pairings of interest: tre… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the published price MAE vs. the actual one in the linear problem formulation. The red lines indicate the median values, while the black diamonds indicate the means. First Author et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of price publication in the linear problem formulation using different techniques. The rolling average SI faces sign instability throughout the settlement period, adding significant uncertainty to the final price. Both planning methods remain substantially better than the rule-based baseline — a 24.5% improvement for S3TS and 21.5% for MCTS at 8 s. The advantage of advanced plan￾ning therefore carr… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Publication MAE histogram in the non-linear regime with 𝑞 ≐ 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Publication MSE histogram in the non-linear regime with 𝑞 ≐ 2. inherits the flexibility of the MCTS framework with respect to model complexity, supporting non-linear dynamics and non-linear cost functions, which both fall outside the capa￾bilities of conventional mathematical-programming solvers. At the same time, by taking a pre-built scenario tree as input rather than sampling outcomes online or learnin… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Effective scheduling in the energy sector is essential to ensure the reliable operation of electrical grids and their connected assets by, for instance, optimizing the dispatch of generation units and storage systems. An effective planning strategy must (a) accommodate advanced and potentially non-linear system models -- exploiting the increasing data availability of modern grids, and (b) explicitly handle uncertainties arising, for instance, from the integration of renewable energy sources. While existing approaches can address either non-linearity (e.g., Monte Carlo Tree Search) or uncertainty (e.g., stochastic mathematical optimization), there is a lack of planning techniques capable of addressing both challenges simultaneously. To bridge this gap, we propose a Stochastic Scenario-Structured Tree Search (S3TS) algorithm that explicitly represents uncertainty through scenario trees while enabling the integration of advanced non-linear models. We evaluate S3TS on a simulated demand response signal publication problem, largely mimicking the imbalance settlement mechanism in Belgium. The results demonstrate near-optimal performance in linear, analytically tractable settings, with costs within 14% of the mathematically optimal solution conditioned to the scenario trees. In highly non-linear scenarios, S3TS significantly outperforms baseline methods, achieving cost reductions of up to 51% and 5.4% compared to a myopic algorithm and deterministic MCTS, respectively.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Stochastic Scenario-Structured Tree Search (S3TS), an algorithm that represents uncertainty explicitly via scenario trees while supporting integration of non-linear system models for planning. It evaluates the method on a simulated demand response signal publication problem that mimics the Belgian imbalance settlement mechanism, reporting costs within 14% of the tree-conditioned optimum in linear cases and cost reductions of up to 51% versus a myopic baseline and 5.4% versus deterministic MCTS in non-linear cases.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold under more detailed scrutiny, the work would offer a practical bridge between scenario-based stochastic optimization and non-linear tree search methods, with potential applicability to energy dispatch and storage problems that combine complex models with renewable-driven uncertainty. The explicit scenario-tree structure and reported near-optimality in the linear case are positive features, but the single simulated proxy and absence of sensitivity or statistical detail currently constrain the assessed significance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: performance metrics (within 14% of optimum; 51%/5.4% gains) are stated without any description of experimental setup, number of replications, statistical significance tests, or concrete implementation details for the myopic algorithm and deterministic MCTS baselines. Because these numbers are the primary evidence for the central bridging claim, the missing information is load-bearing.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: no sensitivity analysis or ablation is reported on scenario-tree parameters (branching factor, depth, or sampling procedure for tail events). The outperformance margins could therefore be sensitive to the particular tree construction chosen for the Belgian imbalance proxy, undermining the generality of the non-linear-case gains.
  3. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the demand-response simulation is presented as a proxy for real-world energy planning, yet no discussion or diagnostic is given on whether the generated scenarios adequately capture renewable-driven uncertainty or introduce systematic bias relative to the true stochastic process.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for scenario-tree nodes and value functions should be introduced with a small diagram or explicit recursive definition to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with stochastic programming.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states 'costs within 14% of the mathematically optimal solution conditioned to the scenario trees' without clarifying whether this optimum is obtained by an exact solver or by another approximation; a one-sentence clarification would help.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's constructive feedback on the evaluation aspects of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will make revisions to improve the clarity and completeness of the reported results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: performance metrics (within 14% of optimum; 51%/5.4% gains) are stated without any description of experimental setup, number of replications, statistical significance tests, or concrete implementation details for the myopic algorithm and deterministic MCTS baselines. Because these numbers are the primary evidence for the central bridging claim, the missing information is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that additional details are needed to substantiate the performance claims. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Evaluation section with a full description of the experimental setup, the number of replications, any statistical significance tests, and concrete implementation details for the myopic algorithm and deterministic MCTS baselines. We will also ensure the abstract refers readers to these details. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: no sensitivity analysis or ablation is reported on scenario-tree parameters (branching factor, depth, or sampling procedure for tail events). The outperformance margins could therefore be sensitive to the particular tree construction chosen for the Belgian imbalance proxy, undermining the generality of the non-linear-case gains.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of such analysis for demonstrating robustness. The revised manuscript will incorporate a sensitivity analysis and/or ablation study on scenario-tree parameters including branching factor, depth, and tail-event sampling to evaluate the stability of the reported gains. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the demand-response simulation is presented as a proxy for real-world energy planning, yet no discussion or diagnostic is given on whether the generated scenarios adequately capture renewable-driven uncertainty or introduce systematic bias relative to the true stochastic process.

    Authors: We will add a new subsection in the revised Evaluation section discussing the scenario generation procedure, its alignment with renewable-driven uncertainty in the Belgian imbalance mechanism, and any diagnostics or acknowledged limitations regarding potential systematic bias. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained via new algorithm and empirical evaluation.

full rationale

The paper introduces S3TS as a novel tree-search algorithm that combines scenario trees for uncertainty with non-linear models, then reports empirical performance on a simulated Belgian demand-response proxy. No step reduces a claimed result to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-citation chain, or a self-definitional equivalence; the central claims rest on explicit algorithmic construction and out-of-sample cost comparisons rather than tautological inputs. The evaluation metrics (costs within 14% of tree-conditioned optimum, gains vs. baselines) are externally falsifiable against the stated simulation and do not rely on prior author work as load-bearing uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed in the provided abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5774 in / 1068 out tokens · 27431 ms · 2026-06-28T14:54:53.784711+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ten challenges for mathematical modeling of the green- energytransition

    Anderson, E., Ferris, M., Philpott, A., Anitescu, M., Cramton, P., Geng, S., Green, R., Homem-de Mello, T., Huber, O., Leclère, V., et al., 2025. Ten challenges for mathematical modeling of the green- energytransition. CurrentSustainable/RenewableEnergyReports12, 1–13

    2025

  2. [2]

    Antonoglou, I., Schrittwieser, J., Ozair, S., Hubert, T.K., Silver, D.,

  3. [3]

    Planning in stochastic environments with a learned model, in: International Conference on Learning Representations

  4. [4]

    Generation expansion planning by milp considering mid-term scheduling deci- sions

    Bakirtzis,G.A.,Biskas,P.N.,Chatziathanasiou,V.,2012. Generation expansion planning by milp considering mid-term scheduling deci- sions. Electric Power Systems Research 86, 98–112

    2012

  5. [5]

    The*-minimax search procedure for trees containing chance nodes

    Ballard, B.W., 1983. The*-minimax search procedure for trees containing chance nodes. Artificial Intelligence 21, 327–350

    1983

  6. [6]

    Introduction to stochastic program- ming

    Birge, J.R., Louveaux, F., 1997. Introduction to stochastic program- ming. Springer

    1997

  7. [7]

    Reinforce- ment learning and dynamic programming using function approxima- tors

    Busoniu,L.,Babuska,R.,DeSchutter,B.,Ernst,D.,2017. Reinforce- ment learning and dynamic programming using function approxima- tors. CRC press

    2017

  8. [8]

    Couëtoux,A.,Hoock,J.B.,Sokolovska,N.,Teytaud,O.,Bonnard,N.,

  9. [9]

    Continuousupperconfidencetrees,in:Internationalconference on learning and intelligent optimization, Springer. pp. 433–445

  10. [10]

    TariffsforMaintainingandRestor- ing the Residual Balance of Individual Access Responsibles (2024– 2027 Period)

    EliaTransmissionBelgium,2024. TariffsforMaintainingandRestor- ing the Residual Balance of Individual Access Responsibles (2024– 2027 Period). Technical Report. Elia. URL:https://www.elia.be/-/ media/project/elia/elia-site/public-consultations/2024/20240606_ proposal-for-modification-of-the-tariff-for-maintaining-and-restoring-the-residual-balance/ 2024060...

    2024

  11. [11]

    Scenario reduc- tion and scenario tree construction for power management problems, in: 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference Proceedings,, IEEE

    Growe-Kuska, N., Heitsch, H., Romisch, W., 2003. Scenario reduc- tion and scenario tree construction for power management problems, in: 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference Proceedings,, IEEE. pp. 7–pp

    2003

  12. [12]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, 2024. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual. URL:https://www.gurobi.com

    2024

  13. [13]

    Monte carlo tree search-based deep reinforcement learning for flexible operation & maintenance optimization of a nuclear power plant

    Hao, Z., Di Maio, F., Zio, E., 2024. Monte carlo tree search-based deep reinforcement learning for flexible operation & maintenance optimization of a nuclear power plant. Journal of Safety and Sus- tainability 1, 4–13

    2024

  14. [14]

    Repre- sentationofuncertaintyinmarketmodelsforoperationalplanningand forecasting in renewable power systems: a review

    Haugen, M., Farahmand, H., Jaehnert, S., Fleten, S.E., 2023. Repre- sentationofuncertaintyinmarketmodelsforoperationalplanningand forecasting in renewable power systems: a review. Energy Systems , 1–36

    2023

  15. [15]

    Efficient mpc-based energy management system for secure and cost-effective microgrid operations

    He, H., Harlim, J., Huang, D., Li, Y., 2025. Efficient mpc-based energy management system for secure and cost-effective microgrid operations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03241

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Scenario reduction algorithms in stochastic programming

    Heitsch, H., Römisch, W., 2003. Scenario reduction algorithms in stochastic programming. Computational optimization and applica- tions 24, 187–206

    2003

  17. [17]

    Scenario tree modeling for mul- tistage stochastic programs

    Heitsch, H., Römisch, W., 2009. Scenario tree modeling for mul- tistage stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming 118, 371– 406

    2009

  18. [18]

    A sparse sampling algo- rithm for near-optimal planning in large markov decision processes

    Kearns, M., Mansour, Y., Ng, A.Y., 2002. A sparse sampling algo- rithm for near-optimal planning in large markov decision processes. Machine learning 49, 193–208

    2002

  19. [19]

    Intelligent consumer flexibility man- agement with neural network-based planning and control

    Kiljander,J.,Sarala,R.,Rehu,J.,Pakkala,D.,Pääkkönen,P.,Takalo- Mattila, J., Känsälä, K., 2021. Intelligent consumer flexibility man- agement with neural network-based planning and control. IEEE Access 9, 40755–40767

    2021

  20. [20]

    Banditbasedmonte-carloplanning, in:Europeanconferenceonmachinelearning,Springer.pp.282–293

    Kocsis,L.,Szepesvári,C.,2006. Banditbasedmonte-carloplanning, in:Europeanconferenceonmachinelearning,Springer.pp.282–293

    2006

  21. [21]

    Kotzur, L., Nolting, L., Hoffmann, M., Groß, T., Smolenko, A., Priesmann, J., Büsing, H., Beer, R., Kullmann, F., Singh, B., et al.,

  22. [22]

    Advances in Applied Energy 4, 100063

    A modeler’s guide to handle complexity in energy systems optimization. Advances in Applied Energy 4, 100063

  23. [23]

    Multi-stage stochastic planning of regional integrated energy system based on scenario tree path optimization under long-term multiple uncertainties

    Lei, Y., Wang, D., Jia, H., Li, J., Chen, J., Li, J., Yang, Z., 2021. Multi-stage stochastic planning of regional integrated energy system based on scenario tree path optimization under long-term multiple uncertainties. Applied Energy 300, 117224

    2021

  24. [24]

    Leastsquaresquantizationinpcm

    Lloyd,S.,1982. Leastsquaresquantizationinpcm. IEEEtransactions on information theory 28, 129–137

    1982

  25. [25]

    Model predictive control-guided reinforcement learning for implicit balancing

    Madahi, S.S.K., Bruninx, K., Claessens, B., Develder, C., 2025. Model predictive control-guided reinforcement learning for implicit balancing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04868

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Distributional reinforcementlearning-basedenergyarbitragestrategiesinimbalance settlement mechanism

    Madahi, S.S.K., Claessens, B., Develder, C., 2024. Distributional reinforcementlearning-basedenergyarbitragestrategiesinimbalance settlement mechanism. Journal of Energy Storage 104, 114377

    2024

  27. [27]

    Stochastic mpc for real-time market-based optimal power dispatch, in: 2011 50th IEEE conferenceondecisionandcontrolandEuropeancontrolconference, IEEE

    Patrinos, P., Trimboli, S., Bemporad, A., 2011. Stochastic mpc for real-time market-based optimal power dispatch, in: 2011 50th IEEE conferenceondecisionandcontrolandEuropeancontrolconference, IEEE. pp. 7111–7116

    2011

  28. [28]

    Demand response for residential building heating: Effective monte carlo tree search control based on physics-informed neural networks

    Pavirani,F.,Gokhale,G.,Claessens,B.,Develder,C.,2024. Demand response for residential building heating: Effective monte carlo tree search control based on physics-informed neural networks. Energy and Buildings 311, 114161

    2024

  29. [29]

    Predicting and publishing accurate imbalance prices using monte carlo tree search

    Pavirani,F.,VanGompel,J.,Madahi,S.S.K.,Claessens,B.,Develder, C., 2025. Predicting and publishing accurate imbalance prices using monte carlo tree search. Applied Energy 392, 125944

    2025

  30. [30]

    Pinson,P.,Madsen,H.,Nielsen,H.A.,Papaefthymiou,G.,Klöckl,B.,

  31. [31]

    WindEnergy:AnInternationalJournal forProgressandApplicationsinWindPowerConversionTechnology 12, 51–62

    From probabilistic forecasts to statistical scenarios of short- termwindpowerproduction. WindEnergy:AnInternationalJournal forProgressandApplicationsinWindPowerConversionTechnology 12, 51–62

  32. [32]

    Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A review of methods and applications

    Roald, L.A., Pozo, D., Papavasiliou, A., Molzahn, D.K., Kazempour, J., Conejo, A., 2023. Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A review of methods and applications. Electric Power Systems Research 214, 108725

    2023

  33. [33]

    Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Hubert, T., Simonyan, K., Sifre, L., Schmitt, S., Guez, A., Lockhart, E., Hassabis, D., Graepel, T., et al.,

  34. [34]

    Nature 588, 604–609

    Masteringatari,go,chessandshogibyplanningwithalearned model. Nature 588, 604–609

  35. [35]

    Option value of electricity demand response

    Sezgen, O., Goldman, C., Krishnarao, P., 2007. Option value of electricity demand response. Energy 32, 108–119

    2007

  36. [36]

    Onlineschedulingofaresidentialmicrogrid via monte-carlo tree search and a learned model

    Shuai,H.,He,H.,2020. Onlineschedulingofaresidentialmicrogrid via monte-carlo tree search and a learned model. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 12, 1073–1087

    2020

  37. [37]

    Demand response performance and uncertainty: A systematic literature review

    Silva, C., Faria, P., Vale, Z., Corchado, J., 2022. Demand response performance and uncertainty: A systematic literature review. Energy Strategy Reviews 41, 100857

    2022

  38. [38]

    Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm

    Silver,D.,Hubert,T.,Schrittwieser,J.,Antonoglou,I.,Lai,M.,Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., et al., 2017. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Monte-carlo planning in large pomdps

    Silver, D., Veness, J., 2010. Monte-carlo planning in large pomdps. Advances in neural information processing systems 23

    2010

  40. [40]

    Smets, R., Bruninx, K., Bottieau, J., Toubeau, J.F., Delarue, E.,

  41. [41]

    IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation 1, 373–385

    Strategic implicit balancing with energy storage systems via stochastic model predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Energy Markets, Policy and Regulation 1, 373–385

  42. [42]

    As- sessment of tso-dso coordination to enhance flexible grid operation

    Zahraoui, Y., Pokhrel, B.R., Oleinikova, I., Gros, S.N., 2025. As- sessment of tso-dso coordination to enhance flexible grid operation. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 12, 20. First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 16 of 16

    2025