Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Learning-aided Bigraph Matching Approach to Multi-Crew Restoration of Damaged Power Networks Coupled with Road Transportation Networks

T0 review · 3 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 claims that a graph neural network trained on 8-crew scenarios learns crew–task incentives that, combined with weighted bipartite matching, restore about three times more power than random allocation and beat MIP optimization in…

desk verdict Useful RL-plus-bigraph matching demonstration for coupled power/road restoration, but the headline optimization comparison rests on a MIP baseline that optimizes a proxy objective, so that specific claim likely won't survive a fair re-run. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19703 v2 pith:NIM65H4U submitted 2025-06-24 cs.LG

Nathan Maurer , Harshal Kaushik , Roshni Anna Jacob , Jie Zhang , Souma Chowdhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords powernetworkrestorationbipartitegraphmatchingreinforcementlearningmulti-crewtaskallocationneuroevolutiondistributionresiliencetransportationcoupling
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 addresses how a utility should assign repair crews to damaged nodes after a disruption, when crews travel through a road network and each repair takes uncertain time and consumes limited resources. It proposes to learn the 'incentive' for every crew–task pair as the edge weight of a bipartite graph, then allocate crews by maximum weighted matching. Training happens on simulated scenarios with 8 crews, 4 depots, and 96 damaged nodes; the resulting policies are evaluated on unseen scenarios with 4, 16, and 32 crews. The measured claim is that the learned policies restore about three times as much power as a random allocation policy and, in the small cases where an optimization baseline could be run, restore equal or more power while computing allocations in milliseconds rather than minutes to tens of minutes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted bipartite graph $G=(V,E,\Omega)$ with crew set $V_C$ and task set $V_T$ (damaged nodes plus depots), where each edge carries weight $\Omega_{i,j}$—the incentive for crew $i$ to be assigned task $j$. The weights are produced by a graph neural network policy that consumes a heterogeneous graph encoding the power network, road network, and the current state of crews and damaged nodes; maximum weighted matching (Hungarian algorithm) then selects a one-to-one assignment. Because the matching step is exact, the entire learning problem is reduced to learning good edge weights, and the GNN's message-passing over the heterogeneous graph supplies the spatial and situational context that the weights must summarize.

What would settle it

Take the trained PPO policy and test it in a simulator where repair times follow a heavier-tailed distribution (e.g., exponential or Weibull with long tails), where a random subset of roads are closed so shortest paths change, and where crew work rate has larger variance; if the reward advantage over a random policy drops materially below the reported ~3x, or if the MIP baseline becomes competitive on these scenarios, the transferability claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a graph neural network can learn a transferable incentive function that turns crew-to-task allocation into a simple weighted bigraph matching problem, and that this combination beats both random allocation and a mixed-integer programming baseline on a simulated IEEE 8500-bus distribution network coupled to a road network. The bigraph connects crews on one side to damaged power nodes and depots on the other; the GNN outputs one scalar per edge, representing how good it is for that crew to take that task right now, and a maximum-weight matching picks the conflict-free assignment. The authors show that the same policy, trained only on 8-crew scenarios, transfers to 4-, 16-, and 32-crew scenarios with small observation/action-space changes, and that both PPO-trained and neuroevolution-trained policies converge to similar average rewards. In head-to-head comparisons on the two small scenarios where the MIP solver terminated, the learned policies delivered slightly or significantly more restored power and ran about four orders of magnitude faster.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulator's stochastic models—lognormal repair times, normal per-hour work-rate noise, and deterministic shortest-path travel on an undamaged road network—are faithful enough to real restoration conditions that a policy trained on them will keep its advantage when deployed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A policy trained once on 8-crew, 4-depot, 96-damaged-node scenarios can be resized and applied to 4-, 16-, and 32-crew scenarios without retraining, indicating that the learned incentives capture transferable structure rather than memorizing training topologies.
  • At inference, the learned policies produce allocations in about 0.008–0.017 seconds on the tested cases, versus 97–1853 seconds for the MIP-based optimization, which would make online re-planning feasible during an outage.
  • Both PPO and neuroevolution converge to similar reward, but neuroevolution achieves this with a much smaller policy network (8 features per node versus 128), suggesting a compact, deployable model is sufficient.
  • The average 3-fold reward improvement over random allocation holds across unseen scenarios of different scale, establishing a baseline for what learned incentives add over uninformed dispatch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the matching layer is an exact solver, the approach is modular: replace the GNN's input features with traffic congestion, road damage, or critical-load weights, and the same allocation machinery applies, as long as those features are observable in the graph.
  • The paper's transfer results suggest a testable hypothesis: the learned incentives encode the myopic value of 'repair the highest-power node reachable before the crew's resources run out,' which would predict that the policy's edge weights correlate with measures like $\text{power lost} \times \text{reachability}$ even in scenarios the trainer never saw.
  • The method's success on a synthetic 8,500-bus feeder raises the natural next question of whether training on one power network transfers to a different network topology; the authors note this is future work, but the architecture's use of relative position rather than absolute node identity makes such transfer plausible.
  • If the speed advantage persists in higher-fidelity simulators, the policy could be used as a warm-start or subproblem solver inside the MIP, potentially shrinking the optimization's solution time by orders of magnitude rather than replacing it outright.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a graph reinforcement learning framework for multi-crew restoration of a power distribution network coupled with a road transportation network. It constructs a single heterogeneous graph containing power network nodes, transportation network nodes, and a bipartite crew-task graph; a GNN policy outputs scalar incentive weights on relation nodes, and weighted maximum bigraph matching allocates crews to damaged nodes or depots at each hourly step. Two policies are trained, one with PPO and one with neuroevolution, on scenarios with 8 crews, 4 depots, and 96 damaged nodes over a 48-hour horizon, and evaluated on unseen scenarios with 4 to 32 crews, plus two small scenarios compared against a Gurobi MIP baseline. The paper reports approximately 3-fold improvement over random policies and orders-of-magnitude faster computation than the MIP baseline, with comparable or better restored power on the two small scenarios.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper would make a useful empirical contribution: a single learned incentive function that transfers across crew counts and can be combined with provably optimal matching is attractive for real-time restoration planning. The use of the IEEE 8500-node test feeder, an OpenStreetMap-based transportation network, and two alternative training paradigms (PPO and neuroevolution) are strengths, and the inference-time advantage of the learned policies is plausibly robust. However, the headline claim of outperforming optimization-based solutions rests on a baseline whose objective is not the same as the reward used to evaluate all methods, is run on different hardware, and is evaluated on only two small single-episode scenarios with no reported optimality gap. The generalization and 3-fold-over-random claims also lack reported statistical support. These issues are fixable, but they currently prevent the paper from supporting its strongest conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B.4 and Table III] The MIP baseline optimizes a different objective from the reward used to train and evaluate the learned policies. Section IV.B.4 states that the MIP's primary objective assigns crews based on 'power restoration potential (kW) and estimated repair times' and separately solves a VRP for travel routes, whereas the episode reward defined in Section II.A.3 is the cumulative normalized energy served over the episode. A solution optimal for that proxy can score lower on the episode reward without implying that the learned policy restores more power. Consequently, the abstract and Section V claim that learned policies 'outperform optimization-based solutions' in power restored is not supported by the comparison as presented.
  2. [Table III and Section IV.D] The computation-time comparison is not a same-hardware comparison: the optimization ran on an Intel Core i7-1365U, while the learned policies ran on an AMD 5950X with an Nvidia 3090. The paper also reports no solver termination criterion or optimality gap, so the Gurobi times of 97 s and 1852.88 s may simply reflect early termination. Because the abstract and conclusion emphasize being 'orders of magnitude' faster, this load-bearing claim requires a controlled comparison, ideally with the same reward, the same machine, and a reported optimality gap or time limit.
  3. [Figure 5 and Section IV.D] The claims of 3-fold better performance than random and of scalability/generalization across scenarios lack statistical support. Figure 5 shows performance for Eval A through Eval D but provides no numeric values, error bars, confidence intervals, or number of evaluation episodes. Table III reports single episode rewards with no variance or significance testing. The paper should report means, standard deviations, and episode counts for each scenario and policy, and perform a significance test for the random comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.A.1 and Abstract] The abstract states that the transportation network is 21 square kilometers, while Section IV.A.1 says the IEEE 8500-node feeder requires a minimum of 2100 square kilometers; this factor-of-100 discrepancy should be reconciled.
  2. [Section IV.D / Figure 5] The caption of Figure 5 does not explain whether the bars are means over multiple episodes or single runs; this should be clarified and the per-policy spread should be shown.
  3. [Section IV.C] The training descriptions state the number of iterations and episodes but do not report the number of random seeds used for PPO or neuroevolution, which would strengthen the robustness claims.
  4. [Section V] There is a typo in the conclusion: 'bigarph matching' should read 'bigraph matching.'
  5. [Section II.C and II.I] The environment uses deterministic shortest-path travel times on the road graph, while stochasticity is applied only to crew work rates; this simplification should be stated explicitly in the evaluation discussion, since real traffic and road damage are not modeled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the learned policy is trained and evaluated on separate scenarios, and the matching optimality is a standard theorem rather than an input assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance claim, not a derived identity. A GNN policy is trained with PPO or neuroevolution to maximize a cumulative normalized energy reward on 32 training environments (8 crews, 4 depots, 96 damaged nodes) and then evaluated on different unseen scenario sets with 4, 8, 16, 32, and 2 crews. The learned edge weights are outputs of the trained policy, not fitted constants that reappear as the evaluation metric; the evaluation reward is the training objective, which is standard reinforcement-learning practice rather than circular reasoning. The maximum-weight bigraph matching step uses the Hungarian/Karp algorithm, whose optimality is an external combinatorial fact, and the learned weights are inputs to that matching, not the source of its correctness. The paper cites prior work by overlapping authors for the bigraph matching formulation and graph-learning methodology, but those citations are contextual and do not carry the load-bearing proof burden: the contribution is the new heterogeneous-graph environment, the training procedure, and the generalization evaluation on an external IEEE 8500-bus/OpenStreetMap testbed. The optimization-baseline comparison is a potential fairness concern because the MIP minimizes a proxy objective (power restoration potential in kW plus estimated repair times plus VRP routing) rather than the same episode reward, and the hardware/time comparison is not controlled; however, this is a baseline-selection issue, not a circular reduction. No equation in the paper defines an output in terms of the target result, and no prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical machine-learning application, not a mathematical derivation. The central claims rest on the fidelity of the simulation models (repair-time distribution, crew productivity, shortest-path travel, node-only restoration) and on the choice and implementation of the optimization baseline. The learned policy weights and hyperparameters are the fitted quantities. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • GNN policy weights (PPO and neuroevolution) = not released; training described in Section IV-C
    These are fitted to maximize episode reward on 32 training scenarios; the central performance claims depend on them, and they are not shipped or enumerated.
  • PPO and neuroevolution hyperparameters = learning rate 1e-5, batch size 384, 2000 iterations; NE: 100 generations, population 50
    Chosen by hand (Table II); performance and training time depend on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Repair times follow a lognormal distribution with mu=-0.3072 and sigma=1.8404, truncated to [1,8]
    Section II-E; the damage profile of all scenarios is generated from this distribution, so episode rewards depend on it.
  • domain assumption Per-hour crew availability is N(1,0.1)
    Section II-I; adds stochasticity but no evidence is given that this matches real crew productivity.
  • domain assumption Crews travel along shortest-time paths on a directed road graph
    Section II-C; ignores traffic, road closures, and the mutual coupling between power outages and transportation.
  • domain assumption Power restoration is achieved only by repairing damaged nodes, without reconfiguration, DG dispatch, or load control
    Section II-B; simplifies the real restoration problem and shapes the upper bound of achievable reward.
  • ad hoc to paper The MIP baseline is an appropriate strong comparator
    Section IV-B4; the baseline optimizes a simplified objective (repair value plus VRP) rather than the same reward used to train and evaluate the learned policies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning-aided Bigraph Matching Approach to Multi-Crew Restoration of Damaged Power Networks Coupled with Road Transportation Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIM65H4U

@misc{pith2026250619703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning-aided Bigraph Matching Approach to Multi-Crew Restoration of Damaged Power Networks Coupled with Road Transportation Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIM65H4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19703}
}
read the original abstract

The resilience of critical infrastructure networks (CINs) after disruptions, such as those caused by natural hazards, depends on both the speed of restoration and the extent to which operational functionality can be regained. Allocating resources for restoration is a combinatorial optimal planning problem that involves determining which crews will repair specific network nodes and in what order. This paper presents a novel graph-based formulation that merges two interconnected graphs, representing crew and transportation nodes and power grid nodes, into a single heterogeneous graph. To enable efficient planning, graph reinforcement learning (GRL) is integrated with bigraph matching. GRL is utilized to design the incentive function for assigning crews to repair tasks based on the graph-abstracted state of the environment, ensuring generalization across damage scenarios. Two learning techniques are employed: a graph neural network trained using Proximal Policy Optimization and another trained via Neuroevolution. The learned incentive functions inform a bipartite graph that links crews to repair tasks, enabling weighted maximum matching for crew-to-task allocations. An efficient simulation environment that pre-computes optimal node-to-node path plans is used to train the proposed restoration planning methods. An IEEE 8500-bus power distribution test network coupled with a 21 square km transportation network is used as the case study, with scenarios varying in terms of numbers of damaged nodes, depots, and crews. Results demonstrate the approach's generalizability and scalability across scenarios, with learned policies providing 3-fold better performance than random policies, while also outperforming optimization-based solutions in both computation time (by several orders of magnitude) and power restored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Information Flow Diagram For Learning Based Power Network Restoration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Neural Network Policy Architecture trained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graph Neural Network Policy architecture trained by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training Convergence Plots 2) IEEE 8500 Power Network: A benchmark distribution test network, specifically the IEEE 8500-node test feeder, is employed to validate the proposed model [32]. This test feeder is a large radial distribution network that closely resembles a …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four different approaches evaluated on four unique sets of unseen scenarios a Random Action Policy, and Optimization Solutions from mixed integer programming. The Random Action Policy and Optimization Solutions serve as baseline methods that the PPO Policy and Neuro-ev…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percentage of Power Restored vs. Simulation Step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Repair and resource scheduling in unbalanced distribution systems using neighborhood search,

    A. Arif, Z. Wang, C. Chen, and J. Wang, “Repair and resource scheduling in unbalanced distribution systems using neighborhood search,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 673–685, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Power distribution system outage management with co-optimization of repairs, reconfiguration, and dg dispatch,

    A. Arif, Z. Wang, J. Wang, and C. Chen, “Power distribution system outage management with co-optimization of repairs, reconfiguration, and dg dispatch,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4109–4118, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Resilient disaster recovery logistics of distribution systems: Co-optimize service restoration with repair crew and mobile power source dispatch,

    S. Lei, C. Chen, Y . Li, and Y . Hou, “Resilient disaster recovery logistics of distribution systems: Co-optimize service restoration with repair crew and mobile power source dispatch,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 6187–6202, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    The healing touch: Tools and challenges for smart grid restoration,

    S. Liu, Y . Hou, C.-C. Liu, and R. Podmore, “The healing touch: Tools and challenges for smart grid restoration,” IEEE power and energy magazine, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 54–63, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Dynamic restoration of active distribution networks by coordinated repair crew dispatch and cold load pickup,

    K. Pang, C. Wang, N. D. Hatziargyriou, and F. Wen, “Dynamic restoration of active distribution networks by coordinated repair crew dispatch and cold load pickup,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4699–4713, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Multi-robot task allocation in disaster response: Addressing dynamic tasks with deadlines and robots with range and payload constraints,

    P. Ghassemi and S. Chowdhury, “Multi-robot task allocation in disaster response: Addressing dynamic tasks with deadlines and robots with range and payload constraints,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 147, p. 103905, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Optimizing service restoration in distribution systems with uncertain repair time and demand,

    A. Arif, S. Ma, Z. Wang, J. Wang, S. Ryan, and C. Chen, “Optimizing service restoration in distribution systems with uncertain repair time and demand,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6828–6838, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Distribution Network Restoration: Resource Scheduling Considering Coupled Transportation-Power Networks

    H. D. Kaushik, R. A. Jacob, S. Chowdhury, and J. Zhang, “Distri- bution network restoration: Resource scheduling considering coupled transportation-power networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13422 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Attention, learn to solve routing problems!

    W. Kool, H. Van Hoof, and M. Welling, “Attention, learn to solve routing problems!” in 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019 , 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Learning the multiple traveling salesmen problem with permutation invariant pooling networks,

    Y . Kaempfer and L. Wolf, “Learning the multiple traveling salesmen problem with permutation invariant pooling networks,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1803.09621, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs,

    E. Khalil, H. Dai, Y . Zhang, B. Dilkina, and L. Song, “Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017, pp. 6348–6358

    2017

  4. [12]

    Multi-robot coverage and exploration using spatial graph neural networks,

    E. V . Tolstaya, J. Paulos, V . R. Kumar, and A. Ribeiro, “Multi-robot coverage and exploration using spatial graph neural networks,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2011.01119, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Learning scalable policies over graphs for multi-robot task allocation using capsule attention net- works,

    S. Paul, P. Ghassemi, and S. Chowdhury, “Learning scalable policies over graphs for multi-robot task allocation using capsule attention net- works,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 8815–8822

    2022

  6. [14]

    Efficient planning of multi-robot collective transport using graph reinforcement learning with higher order topological abstraction,

    S. Paul, W. Li, B. Smyth, Y . Chen, Y . Gel, and S. Chowdhury, “Efficient planning of multi-robot collective transport using graph reinforcement learning with higher order topological abstraction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08933 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fast decision support for air tra ffic management at urban air mobility vertiports using graph learning,

    P. KrisshnaKumar, J. Witter, S. Paul, H. Cho, K. Dantu, and S. Chowd- hury, “Fast decision support for air tra ffic management at urban air mobility vertiports using graph learning,” in 2023 IEEE /RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, ...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Graph learning based decision support for multi-aircraft take-o ff and landing at urban air mobility vertiports,

    P. K. Kumar, J. Witter, S. Paul, K. Dantu, and S. Chowdhury, “Graph learning based decision support for multi-aircraft take-o ff and landing at urban air mobility vertiports,” inAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, 2023, p. 1848

    2023

  9. [17]

    Learning to allocate time-bound and dynamic tasks to multiple robots using covariant attention neural networks,

    S. Paul and S. Chowdhury, “Learning to allocate time-bound and dynamic tasks to multiple robots using covariant attention neural networks,” Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engi- neering, vol. 24, no. 9, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Real-time outage management in active distribution networks using reinforcement learning over graphs,

    R. A. Jacob, S. Paul, S. Chowdhury, Y . R. Gel, and J. Zhang, “Real-time outage management in active distribution networks using reinforcement learning over graphs,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 4766, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Bigraph matching weighted with learnt incentive function for multi-robot task allocation,

    S. Paul, N. Maurer, and S. Chowdhury, “Bigraph matching weighted with learnt incentive function for multi-robot task allocation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 7250–7256

    2024

  12. [20]

    Neuroevolution in deep neural networks: Current trends and future challenges,

    E. Galv ´an and P. Mooney, “Neuroevolution in deep neural networks: Current trends and future challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 476–493, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Adaptive neuroevolution with genetic operator control and two-way complexity variation,

    A. Behjat, N. Maurer, S. Chidambaran, and S. Chowdhury, “Adaptive neuroevolution with genetic operator control and two-way complexity variation,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1627–1641, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Comparative exploration of three approaches to learning heterogeneous robot swarm operations over abstracted complex adversarial environments

    P. KrisshnaKumar, S. Paul, A. Behjat, H. Manjunatha, N. Maurer, E. Esfahani, and S. Chowdhury, “Comparative exploration of three approaches to learning heterogeneous robot swarm operations over abstracted complex adversarial environments.”

  15. [23]

    Evolutionary algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization—a review,

    A. Radhakrishnan and G. Jeyakumar, “Evolutionary algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization—a review,” Innovations in Com- puter Science and Engineering: Proceedings of 8th ICICSE , pp. 539– 545, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments,

    A. Kwiatkowski, M. Towers, J. Terry, J. U. Balis, G. D. Cola, T. Deleu, M. Goul ˜ao, A. Kallinteris, M. Krimmel, A. KG, R. Perez- Vicente, A. Pierr ´e, S. Schulho ff, J. J. Tai, H. Tan, and O. G. Younis, “Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments,...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Reference guide: The open distribution system simu- lator (OpenDSS),

    R. C. Dugan, “Reference guide: The open distribution system simu- lator (OpenDSS),” Electric Power Research Institute , 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Opendssdirect. py,

    D. Krishnamurthy, “Opendssdirect. py,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), Tech. Rep., 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly , vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  20. [28]

    An n ˆ5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs,

    J. E. Hopcroft and R. M. Karp, “An n ˆ5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 225–231, 1973

    1973

  21. [29]

    Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric,

    M. Fey and J. E. Lenssen, “Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric,” in ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds , 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher- order graph neural networks,

    C. Morris, M. Ritzert, M. Fey, W. L. Hamilton, J. E. Lenssen, G. Rattan, and M. Grohe, “Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher- order graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 4602–4609

    2019

  23. [31]

    Osmnx: New methods for acquiring, constructing, ana- lyzing, and visualizing complex street networks,

    G. Boeing, “Osmnx: New methods for acquiring, constructing, ana- lyzing, and visualizing complex street networks,” Computers, Environ- ment and Urban Systems , vol. 65, pp. 126–139, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    The ieee 8500-node test feeder,

    R. F. Arritt and R. C. Dugan, “The ieee 8500-node test feeder,” Electric Power Research Institute, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,

    A. Ra ffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dormann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021. [Online]. Available: http: //jmlr.org/papers/ v22/20-1364.html

    2021

Pith tools

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