Surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems for Benders decomposition in energy planning

Boyung J\"urgens; Leonard G\"oke; Wanhong Yu

Surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems for Benders decomposition in energy planning

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Prioritizing the sub-problem with the largest estimated cutting-plane error cuts Benders work by up to 55% on energy-planning models.

desk verdict Clean sequential Benders refinement that actually cuts SP solves 33–55 % on a realistic energy-planning instance; parallel story is weaker but secondary. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05063 v1 pith:J56OLRQH submitted 2026-07-06 eess.SY cs.SY

Wanhong Yu , Boyung Jürgens , Leonard Göke This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords Bendersdecompositionsurrogatemodelingsub-problemprioritizationenergyplanningregularizationasynchronousparallelizationcutting-planemethods

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

Benders decomposition repeatedly solves a master problem for first-stage decisions and a collection of second-stage sub-problems that generate cuts. When the sub-problems are large, solving every one of them every iteration is expensive. This paper shows that a cheap surrogate of each sub-problem’s objective is enough to identify which single sub-problem currently has the biggest gap between true cost and the master’s cutting-plane approximation. Solving only that sub-problem still produces valid cuts and, with a carefully designed convergence check that occasionally forces a full solve, still reaches the same optimality gap. On a multi-scenario capacity-expansion model for a fully renewable power system the sequential version therefore solves 33 % fewer sub-problems with four scenarios and 55 % fewer with ten. Geometric interpolation (nearest-neighbor or inverse-distance weighting) supplies a more accurate surrogate than the machine-learning alternatives tried, and the same surrogate also drives regularization and the decision of when to verify convergence. The practical payoff is a systematically lighter Benders loop for any problem whose second-stage pieces dominate run-time.

What carries the argument

Surrogate-based prioritization: at each iteration the gap ẑ_s − z̃_s is computed for every scenario s from a cheap interpolant ẑ_s; only the arg-max scenario is solved, and the same interpolant later decides whether a full convergence check or a stability-center update is required.

What would settle it

Replace the perfect or nearest-neighbor surrogate with pure random sub-problem selection on the same ten-scenario energy model and check whether the number of sub-problems solved rises back toward the standard multi-cut baseline; if it does not, prioritization is not the operative mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A surrogate that estimates each second-stage objective from the current first-stage decision lets the algorithm rank sub-problems by the error of the master’s cutting-plane estimator; selecting only the highest-error sub-problem per iteration measurably reduces total work while preserving convergence on a large energy-planning instance.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm trusts that a Euclidean distance threshold between successive master solutions (or a surrogate upper-bound gap) will fire a full solve before the method can stall at a suboptimal stability center.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any Benders application whose second-stage work dominates run-time can drop the fraction of sub-problems solved without sacrificing the final optimality gap.
When training data are scarce, simple geometric interpolants are preferable to neural or kernel regressors for ranking cutting-plane errors.
The same surrogate that ranks sub-problems can also drive trust-region regularization and the decision of when to verify an upper bound, collapsing three heuristics into one object.
As the number of discrete scenarios grows, the relative saving from prioritization increases roughly linearly until master-problem size becomes non-negligible.

Reading between the lines

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

The same ranking idea could be paired with machine-learning estimates of each sub-problem’s wall-clock time to produce a true cost-benefit scheduler for heterogeneous compute nodes.
If the first-stage variables are low-dimensional, a single global interpolant shared across scenarios might further reduce the training burden.
The method is immediately portable to any multi-cut Benders setting (not only energy) that already uses regularization, provided a modest archive of past (x, z) pairs is kept.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful bit is simple: rank sub-problems by estimated cutting-plane error (ẑ_s − z̃_s) via a cheap geometric surrogate, solve only the worst one, and still hit the 0.1 % gap. On their multi-cut trust-region Benders for a four-country capacity-expansion model they cut the number of SP solves by 33 % (4 scenarios) to 55 % (10 scenarios). The perfect-oracle experiment (Fig. 8) cleanly shows the ranking itself beats random selection; NN/IDW then track the oracle closely enough that the sequential algorithm still converges (Fig. 10). That is the real contribution—prior SP-selection work needed a sampling distribution and did not play nicely with regularization; this one works for a handful of large discrete scenarios and re-uses the same surrogate for stability-center updates and convergence checks.

What they do well: the algorithm is standard multi-cut Benders; the surrogate never enters the cuts or the lower-bound proof, so convergence remains certified by exact full solves. Geometric interpolants beat the ML options they tried under the small-data regime that arises inside the loop. Code lives in AnyMOD.jl; the free parameters (h = 10, IDW power, H_min/H_max) are stated.

Soft spots are real but secondary. The Euclidean-distance / surrogate-gap trigger that forces a full solve is a pure heuristic; they only show one fixed h works on this family. Parallel results are noisier—static allocation sometimes helps wall time via idle-time reduction, dynamic allocation is killed by pre-processing—and the average 19 % claim is soft. Instance data are not yet public, so independent re-runs are blocked for now. None of that overturns the sequential claim.

This is for people who already run regularized multi-cut Benders on energy or similar two-stage models with a few expensive SPs. It is not a new theory paper and will not travel far outside that community, but the sequential numbers are solid enough that a serious referee should see it. I would accept for peer review and would cite the sequential result if I were tuning a similar solver this year.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems (SPs) inside multi-cut regularized Benders decomposition for two-stage energy capacity-expansion models. Surrogates (nearest-neighbor and inverse-distance weighting) estimate each SP objective ẑ_s from the current first-stage candidate x; the SP with largest estimated cutting-plane error ẑ_s − z̃_s is solved, while unsolved SPs are approximated for regularization updates and upper-bound checks. Full SP solves are forced when successive master solutions are close (Euclidean threshold η = h·‖x_i‖₂) or when the surrogate gap falls below tolerance, guaranteeing eventual exact convergence. Sequential and two asynchronous (static/dynamic allocation) variants are given. On a four-node, hourly greenfield power-system model with 4–10 climate scenarios, sequential prioritization reduces the number of SP solves by 33 % (4 scenarios) to 55 % (10 scenarios) relative to standard regularized multi-cut Benders while still reaching a 0.1 % optimality gap; geometric interpolants outperform the tested ML surrogates; asynchronous gains average ~19 % and are noisier.

Significance. The work addresses a practically relevant bottleneck: large, storage-coupled operational SPs dominate run-time in renewable-heavy capacity-expansion models, while the master remains small and continuous. The perfect-oracle experiment cleanly isolates the value of the largest-error selection rule from surrogate error, and the sequential benchmarks show monotonic improvement with scenario count and near-oracle performance for modest |S|. Convergence remains certified by exact full solves; the surrogate never enters the cuts or the lower-bound proof. The algorithms are implemented in an open modeling framework (AnyMOD.jl), which supports reproducibility. Even if the asynchronous results are less decisive, a robust sequential speed-up of this magnitude is useful for the energy-systems community and transferable to other multi-cut Benders settings with few large SPs.

major comments (2)

Alg. 3 and §3.3: the Euclidean-distance / surrogate-gap trigger (η = h·‖x_i‖₂ with fixed h = 10) that forces a full SP solve and stability-center update is a free parameter whose robustness is not demonstrated. A short sensitivity sweep over h (or an adaptive rule) on the same instance family would confirm that the reported 33–55 % reductions are not an artifact of a single well-tuned threshold and would strengthen the claim that the method “still guarantees convergence.”
§5.4 / Fig. 11: asynchronous results rest on median wall-clock times from a non-deterministic distributed-memory environment; the paper already notes hardware variability and solver non-determinism. Without reporting the number of independent replications, inter-quartile ranges, or a normalized metric (e.g., SP-solve count plus idle-time fraction), the claimed average 19 % speed-up is difficult to interpret and should be qualified more carefully or supported by additional statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: surrogate prioritization is a heuristic selection rule inside standard multi-cut regularized Benders; exact SP solves still certify bounds and convergence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an algorithmic refinement (select the SP maximizing estimated cutting-plane error ẑ_s − z̃_s via a surrogate trained only on previously solved instances of that same SP). The surrogate never enters the optimality cuts, the master lower bound, or the feasibility certificates; those remain the classical dual multipliers and exact SP objectives obtained when the Euclidean-distance / surrogate-gap trigger forces a full solve (Alg. 3). Convergence to the prescribed 0.1 % gap is therefore still proved by the ordinary Benders argument, not by any property of the surrogate. Geometric interpolants (NN/IDW) are simply empirical approximators whose accuracy is measured out-of-sample against the true SP values; they are not fitted parameters later re-labeled as predictions of an external quantity. Self-citations (Göke 2021, Göke et al. 2024) supply only the energy-system model and the trust-region regularizer; they do not underwrite uniqueness or force the prioritization rule. Consequently the derivation chain contains no self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation of an unverified uniqueness claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard convexity of the second-stage value function (so optimality cuts remain valid) plus a handful of algorithmic hyper-parameters that control when a full solve is forced. No new physical entities or free parameters fitted to external data are introduced; the surrogates are pure interpolants of already-computed points.

free parameters (3)

distance threshold h (η = h·‖x_i‖₂) = 10
Controls when a full convergence check is triggered; set to 10 without sensitivity analysis.
H_min / H_max for asynchronous priority = 0.0001 / 5
Relative distance thresholds that force high/low priority of a sub-problem; set to 0.0001 and 5.
IDW power parameter p = 5
Controls distance weighting in the inverse-distance surrogate; fixed at 5.

assumptions (3)

standard math Second-stage value functions are convex, so multi-cut optimality cuts remain valid lower bounds even when only a subset of sub-problems is solved.
Invoked throughout §2–3; classical Benders theory.
domain assumption Slack variables with extremely high costs keep every sub-problem feasible for any first-stage x.
Stated in §2.2; common modeling device in energy planning.
domain assumption Trust-region regularization around the current best solution does not destroy finite convergence of multi-cut Benders.
Cited from Göke et al. 2024 and used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems for Benders decomposition in energy planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J56OLRQH

@misc{pith2026260705063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems for Benders decomposition in energy planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J56OLRQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05063}
}

read the original abstract

Benders decomposition solves optimization problems by separating the first-stage master problem from one or more second-stage sub-problems. While the standard Benders decomposition solves all sub-problems in each iteration, solving only selected sub-problems still guarantees convergence and can reduce solution time, but raises the question of how to select. In this work, we introduce surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems. The method leverages surrogates to estimate the sub-problems' objectives, assess the current error of the cutting-plane estimator, and then prioritize the sub-problem with the largest error. We implement surrogate-based prioritization within sequential and asynchronous Benders decomposition. Both these algorithms also leverage the surrogate to trigger convergence checks and implement regularization. Benchmarks for an energy planning problem with a few large sub-problems show that the applied prioritization strategy works. The reduction in solution time correlates with the surrogate's accuracy. In our case, geometric interpolation-based surrogates are more accurate than machine learning methods. As a result, prioritization consistently and significantly outperforms the standard algorithm in sequential Benders decomposition. The speed-up increases with the number of scenarios, reaching 33\% with four scenarios and 55% with ten scenarios. In the case of asynchronous parallelization, the impact on performance is less clear, and the average speed-up from prioritization is 19%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05063 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Cutting plane algorithm iteratively approximating the second-stage problems Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 6 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Two SPs with different accuracy of cutting plane estimator in second iteration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Flowchart for sequential implementation of SP-prioritization Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Solution time for SPs in case with 4 scenarios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Concept of synchronous and asynchronous parallelization Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Communication mechanism and workflow of asynchronous parallelization Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 15 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Overview of energy carriers and technologies in the capacity expansion model Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Benchmarks for SP prioritization (6 scenarios) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Accuracy of surrogates Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 21 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Performance of sequential implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Number of SPs solved and median solution time for parallelization methods Yu, Jürgens, and Göke: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 22 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

INFORMS Journal on Computing 37, 1163–1181

A stochastic benders decomposition scheme for large-scale stochastic network design. INFORMS Journal on Computing 37, 1163–1181. doi:10.1287/ijoc.2023.0074. Bonnans, J.F., Gilbert, J.C., Lemaréchal, C., Sagastizábal, C.A.,

work page doi:10.1287/ijoc.2023.0074 2023
[2]

Springer Science & Business Media

Numerical optimization: theoretical and practical aspects. Springer Science & Business Media. Borozan,S.,Giannelos,S.,Falugi,P.,Moreira,A.,Strbac,G.,2024. Machinelearning-enhancedbendersdecompositionapproachforthemulti-stage stochastic transmission expansion planning problem. Electric Power Systems Research 237, 110985. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110985. Fra...

doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110985 2024
[3]

SIAM Journal on Optimization 13, 117–156

Generalized bundle methods. SIAM Journal on Optimization 13, 117–156. doi:10.1137/S1052623498342186. Göke,L.,2021. Agraph-basedformulationformodelingmacro-energysystems. AppliedEnergy301,117377. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021. 117377. Göke, L., Schmidt, F., Kendziorski, M.,

work page doi:10.1137/s1052623498342186 2021
[4]

European Journal of Operational Research 316, 183–199

Stabilized benders decomposition for energy planning under climate uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 316, 183–199. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.01.016. Yu, Jürgens, and Göke:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 23 of 24 Surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems Grübler,L.M.,Göke,L.,Müsgens,F.,2025. Performanceofbendersalgorithmfordiffere...

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.01.016 2024
[5]

INFORMS Journal on Optimization doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023.0005

A computationally efficient benders decomposition for energy systems planning problems with detailed operations and time-coupling constraints. INFORMS Journal on Optimization doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023.0005. Jacobson, A., Pecci, F., Sepulveda, N., Xu, Q., Jenkins, J.,

doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023.0005 2023
[6]

INFORMS Journal on Optimization 6, 32–45

A computationally efficient benders decomposition for energy systems planning problems with detailed operations and time-coupling constraints. INFORMS Journal on Optimization 6, 32–45. doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023

work page doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023 2023
[7]

Mathematical Programming Computation doi:10.1007/s12532-026-00324-3

Accelerating benders decomposition for solving a sequence of sample average approximation replications. Mathematical Programming Computation doi:10.1007/s12532-026-00324-3. Lara, C.L., Mallapragada, D.S., Papageorgiou, D.J., Venkatesh, A., Grossmann, I.E.,

work page doi:10.1007/s12532-026-00324-3
[8]

European Journal of Operational Research 271, 1037–1054

Deterministic electric power infrastructure planning: Mixed-integer programming model and nested decomposition algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research 271, 1037–1054. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718304466, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.039. Li, C., Conejo, A.J., Liu, P., Omell, B.P., Siirola, J.P., Grossmann, I.E.,

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.039 2018

Show all 18 references

[9]

European Journal of Operational Research 297, 1071–1082

Mixed-integer linear programming models and algorithms for generation and transmission expansion planning of power systems. European Journal of Operational Research 297, 1071–1082. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721005397, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.202...

2021 doi
[10]

Management Science 63, 2027–2048

Tailored benders decomposition for a long-term power expansion model with short-term demand response. Management Science 63, 2027–2048. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2420. Mak, S., Mana, K., Zehtabi, P., Cashmore, M., Magazzeni, D., Veloso, M.,

2027 doi
[11]

Mazzi,N.,Grothey,A.,McKinnon,K.,Sugishita,N.,2021

Towards accelerating benders decomposition via reinforcement learning surrogate models, in: ICML 2023 Workshop: Sampling and Optimization in Discrete Space. Mazzi,N.,Grothey,A.,McKinnon,K.,Sugishita,N.,2021. Bendersdecompositionwithadaptiveoraclesforlargescaleoptimization. Mat...

2023 doi
[12]

Optimization Methods and Software 29, 1180–1209

Level bundle methods for oracles with on-demand accuracy. Optimization Methods and Software 29, 1180–1209. Parolin,F.,Weng,Y.,Colbertaldo,P.,Macdonald,R.,2026. Sectoralandspatialdecompositionmethodsformulti-sectorcapacityexpansionmodels. Energy Conversion and Management 358, 1...

2026 doi
[13]

IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 1–12doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2025.3526413

Regularized benders decomposition for high performance capacity expansion models. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 1–12doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2025.3526413. Pereira, M.V., Pinto, L.M.,

2025 doi
[14]

Applied Energy 197, 1–13

Dealing with multiple decades of hourly wind and pv time series in energy models: A comparison of methods to reduce time resolution and the planning implications of inter-annual variability. Applied Energy 197, 1–13. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0306...

2017 doi
[15]

European Journal of Operational Research 259, 801–817

The benders decomposition algorithm: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 259, 801–817. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.12.005. Sasanpour, S., Wetzel, M., Cao, K.K., Gils, H.C., Ramos, A.,

2016 doi
[16]

Sepulveda, N.A., Jenkins, J.D., Edington, A., Mallapragada, D.S., Lester, R.K.,

Accelerating stochastic energy system optimization models: Temporally split benders decompositionarXiv:2508.10789. Sepulveda, N.A., Jenkins, J.D., Edington, A., Mallapragada, D.S., Lester, R.K.,

arXiv
[17]

Wolf, C., Fábián, C.I., Koberstein, A., Suhl, L.,

doi:10.1038/s41560-021-00796-8. Wolf, C., Fábián, C.I., Koberstein, A., Suhl, L.,

doi
[18]

Zakeri, G., Philpott, A.B., Ryan, D.M.,

High-resolution ptdf-based planning of storage and transmission under high renewables arXiv:2510.14696. Zakeri, G., Philpott, A.B., Ryan, D.M.,

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

INFORMS Journal on Computing 37, 1163–1181

A stochastic benders decomposition scheme for large-scale stochastic network design. INFORMS Journal on Computing 37, 1163–1181. doi:10.1287/ijoc.2023.0074. Bonnans, J.F., Gilbert, J.C., Lemaréchal, C., Sagastizábal, C.A.,

work page doi:10.1287/ijoc.2023.0074 2023

[2] [2]

Springer Science & Business Media

Numerical optimization: theoretical and practical aspects. Springer Science & Business Media. Borozan,S.,Giannelos,S.,Falugi,P.,Moreira,A.,Strbac,G.,2024. Machinelearning-enhancedbendersdecompositionapproachforthemulti-stage stochastic transmission expansion planning problem. Electric Power Systems Research 237, 110985. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110985. Fra...

doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2024.110985 2024

[3] [3]

SIAM Journal on Optimization 13, 117–156

Generalized bundle methods. SIAM Journal on Optimization 13, 117–156. doi:10.1137/S1052623498342186. Göke,L.,2021. Agraph-basedformulationformodelingmacro-energysystems. AppliedEnergy301,117377. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021. 117377. Göke, L., Schmidt, F., Kendziorski, M.,

work page doi:10.1137/s1052623498342186 2021

[4] [4]

European Journal of Operational Research 316, 183–199

Stabilized benders decomposition for energy planning under climate uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 316, 183–199. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.01.016. Yu, Jürgens, and Göke:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 23 of 24 Surrogate-based prioritization of sub-problems Grübler,L.M.,Göke,L.,Müsgens,F.,2025. Performanceofbendersalgorithmfordiffere...

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.01.016 2024

[5] [5]

INFORMS Journal on Optimization doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023.0005

A computationally efficient benders decomposition for energy systems planning problems with detailed operations and time-coupling constraints. INFORMS Journal on Optimization doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023.0005. Jacobson, A., Pecci, F., Sepulveda, N., Xu, Q., Jenkins, J.,

doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023.0005 2023

[6] [6]

INFORMS Journal on Optimization 6, 32–45

A computationally efficient benders decomposition for energy systems planning problems with detailed operations and time-coupling constraints. INFORMS Journal on Optimization 6, 32–45. doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023

work page doi:10.1287/ijoo.2023 2023

[7] [7]

Mathematical Programming Computation doi:10.1007/s12532-026-00324-3

Accelerating benders decomposition for solving a sequence of sample average approximation replications. Mathematical Programming Computation doi:10.1007/s12532-026-00324-3. Lara, C.L., Mallapragada, D.S., Papageorgiou, D.J., Venkatesh, A., Grossmann, I.E.,

work page doi:10.1007/s12532-026-00324-3

[8] [8]

European Journal of Operational Research 271, 1037–1054

Deterministic electric power infrastructure planning: Mixed-integer programming model and nested decomposition algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research 271, 1037–1054. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718304466, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.039. Li, C., Conejo, A.J., Liu, P., Omell, B.P., Siirola, J.P., Grossmann, I.E.,

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.039 2018