Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 163 references

Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhorse of Future Grid Computations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that large-scale grid optimization is becoming the central computation of future grids, with physics-based solvers still leading and physics-constrained machine learning emerging where those solvers cannot reach.

desk verdict Useful survey of large-scale grid optimization, but the abstract overstates what the surveyed evidence shows about data-driven methods. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04623 v1 pith:NNGGBFRL submitted 2025-01-08 eess.SY cs.SY

Amritanshu Pandey , Mads Almassalkhi , Sam Chevalier This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords large-scalegridoptimizationoptimalpowerflowunitcommitmenttransmissionanddistributionnetworksphysics-constrainedmachinelearningstochasticconstraintscreeningdistributedenergyresources
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

Grid operators, planners, and policymakers increasingly rely on optimization models that span transmission, distribution, and multi-period horizons, and this paper maps how those models are being solved. Its central finding is that mechanistic physics-based solvers still carry the science for large-scale grid optimizations, while data-driven methods are becoming a credible complement, especially when they respect grid physics. The authors organize the literature into a taxonomy by network layer and problem type, review recent advances in capacity expansion, unit commitment, security-constrained and multi-period optimal power flow, and distribution dispatch, and document gaps that industry experts report. A sympathetic reader should care because the claim, if right, redirects research effort toward augmenting existing solvers rather than betting on pure end-to-end learning for the largest grid problems.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the taxonomy in Figure 1: problem features on one side, including deterministic versus stochastic, single-period versus multi-period, transmission versus distribution versus combined T&D, and AC versus linearized network models, and solution techniques on the other, including mechanistic physics-based solvers and data-driven ML methods. The paper uses this grid to position each optimization instance, such as capacity expansion, production cost modeling, security-constrained unit commitment, stochastic SCUC, security-constrained ACOPF, multi-period OPF, distribution OPF, and state estimation, and to identify where advances come from. Within the data-driven branch, the load-bearing mechanism is physics-constrained learning, which includes neural-network warm starts fed back into NLP solvers, dual or Lagrangian regularized networks that predict feasible solutions, and learned screening of inactive constraints or contingencies.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to track the leaderboard of a large standardized grid-optimization competition held after this paper: if end-to-end learning models won the largest security-constrained AC-OPF instances without physics-based solver components, or if a comprehensive independent survey found physics-constrained learning already displacing mechanistic solvers in routine industrial use, the paper's central finding would be overturned. For the gaps claim, a structured survey of grid operators with a much larger sample could confirm or refute the listed gaps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that large-scale grid optimization, fueled by new spatial features such as distributed energy resources and combined transmission-distribution analysis, and new temporal features such as storage, renewables, and multi-period horizons, has become the workhorse of future grid computations. After reviewing recent work through a taxonomy that separates transmission, distribution, and combined T&D problems, and within each, mechanistic physics-based and data-driven solution techniques, the authors conclude that physics-based methods currently lead in solving these large-scale problems. They also find that data-driven techniques, particularly physics-constrained learning, are emerging as an alternative for problems that physics-based solvers cannot handle alone. The paper further claims observable gaps exist between academic methods and industry needs, including model quality, runtime overhead, and the lack of methods for combined markets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the authors' non-exhaustive literature selection and the feedback from a small number of industry practitioners are representative enough to support general claims about where large-scale grid optimization is heading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the assessment holds, research on the largest grid problems should continue to center physics-based solvers, with machine learning used to warm start, screen constraints, and approximate hard subproblems.
  • The near-term frontier shifts to combined transmission-distribution optimization, where the lack of large-scale realistic models and standardized data currently blocks progress.
  • Industry adoption will favor methods that cut runtime without adding model burden, such as constraint screening that can be checked against the neglected constraints.
  • Stochastic unit commitment and multi-period AC optimal power flow are identified as the pressing large-scale targets, driven by fuel-supply-constrained winters and storage and battery ramping.
  • The gap list implies a research agenda focused on robust-to-model-error optimization, distribution market optimization, and multi-level coordination between grid operators at transmission and distribution levels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the authors do not spell out is that the machine-learning contributions they cite cluster on transmission OPF and unit commitment, while distribution and combined T&D learning is thinner; a testable prediction is that the next wave of AI-for-grid work shifts to distribution state estimation and T&D co-optimization.
  • Because many of the fastest data-driven results are warm starts and screening, an implicit corollary is that solver speed-ups compound: every saved interior-point iteration from a learned warm start makes stochastic or multi-period extensions more affordable.
  • The dependence of the gap list on a handful of expert communications suggests a low-cost validation: a structured survey of grid operators with a pre-registered questionnaire would test whether the observed gaps generalize.
  • The review's taxonomy could be extended into a benchmark discipline: if learning methods are to replace screening heuristics, the community would need standardized constraint-activity datasets on large test networks, an extension the paper invites but does not propose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review paper surveys computational methods for large-scale power grid optimization, organized around a taxonomy of problem types (capacity expansion, production cost modeling, security-constrained unit commitment, multi-period OPF, combined T&D, etc.) and two methodological families: mechanistic physics-based solvers and emerging data-driven/ML techniques. It covers transmission, distribution, and combined T&D settings, reports recent advances (including ARPA-E competition results), and concludes with a list of 'observable gaps' derived from the authors' literature review and private feedback from a small set of industry contacts. The abstract's central finding is that physics-based methods currently lead the field, while data-driven techniques, especially physics-constrained ones, are 'emerging as an alternative' for otherwise intractable problems.

Significance. If the synthesis is taken at its calibrated strength, the paper is a useful and readable orientation for researchers and practitioners entering large-scale grid optimization: it consolidates a broad literature, provides a sensible taxonomy, and highlights recent high-impact developments such as the ARPA-E GOC, warm-starting methods, and constraint screening. The authors are transparent that the survey is non-exhaustive, and they explicitly credit recent advances without overclaiming for individual methods. The paper's value lies in organization and expert perspective rather than in new technical results. However, the headline claim about data-driven methods being an 'alternative' is stronger than the surveyed evidence supports, and the gaps section rests on a very small, potentially conflicted set of industry contacts; both issues need to be addressed for the paper's conclusions to be trustworthy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract's central finding that 'data-driven techniques, especially physics-constrained ones, are emerging as an alternative to solve otherwise intractable problems' is not supported by the paper's own survey. Section 3.2 states that DC3 [105] 'was never scaled'; OPF-DNN [107]-[108] reached only 300-3,400 buses; the ADMM warm-start method [109] reached 6,700 buses; and the largest end-to-end method, Compact Learning [111], is a PCA-compression approach rather than a physics-constrained one. The large-scale successes in constraint screening [117], [40] and UC acceleration [28], [114] are explicitly warm-start or screening aids, not standalone alternatives to physics-based solvers. The evidence supports the weaker claim that data-driven methods are becoming useful accelerators and warm-start aids for large-scale grid optimization. Please revise the abstract and related conclusions to match the surveyed evidence, or provide additional evidence that would justify the stronger 'alternative' phrasing.
  2. [Section 6] The 'observable gaps' in Section 6 rest primarily on private email exchanges with five named industry contacts ([67], [68], [162], [163]). This is a small, non-random sample, and at least one contact (M. Jereminov, Pearl Street Technologies) is affiliated with a company in which A. Pandey owns equity, creating a potential conflict that is disclosed only in the Competing Interests statement and not in the context of the gap analysis. As written, the strength of the claims ('observable gaps in the field') exceeds what this evidence base can support. I recommend either supplementing these private communications with public industry roadmaps, surveys, or a broader structured elicitation, or explicitly reframing the gaps as 'reported by a small set of industry collaborators' with appropriate caveats about generalizability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1]
  2. [Table 1]
  3. [Section 2]
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's synthesis is not derived from or defined in terms of its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a review/survey paper with no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or predictive model, so the classic circularity patterns (self-definitional quantities, fitted inputs called predictions, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz smuggled in via citation) do not apply. The central finding—that physics-based methods still lead large-scale grid optimization while physics-constrained data-driven methods are emerging—is a synthesis of the surveyed literature and industry feedback, not a quantity computed from those inputs. The authors cite their own prior work ([37], [41], [51], [153], etc.) as examples in the literature review, but the review's conclusions do not depend on the truth of those papers' specific results; removing those citations would not alter the claimed findings. The 'observable gaps' in Section 6 are based on a small set of private email exchanges ([67], [68], [162], [163]), and one acknowledged expert has ties to Pearl Street Technologies, in which author A. Pandey owns equity; this is a potential independence/bias concern for the gap list, but it is not a circular reduction because the gaps are reported opinions rather than outputs forced by the paper's own construction. The paper explicitly disclaims exhaustiveness in Section 2. The abstract's stronger wording about data-driven methods as 'an alternative' could be challenged as overstating the surveyed evidence (many cited methods were not scaled), but that is a correctness/evidence-weighting issue, not circularity. Accordingly, a score of 1 reflects only minor self-citation with no load-bearing circular step.

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

The review's conclusions rest on representativeness of a non-exhaustive literature subset and private expert feedback, plus the asserted trend of grid transformation. No equations, fitted parameters, or new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The recent literature selected for review, though explicitly non-exhaustive, is representative of the field's state of the art.
    Section 2 states the citations are non-exhaustive and chosen to synthesize recent advancements; the findings depend on this selection being representative.
  • ad hoc to paper Feedback from a small set of industry experts (private emails [67], [68], [162], [163]) collectively identifies the most important industry gaps.
    Section 6 bases the observable gaps on these private communications; if the experts are not representative, the gap analysis may be biased.
  • domain assumption Power grid optimization problems are growing in scale due to increasing spatial and temporal features from DERs, storage, and uncertainty.
    Section 1 asserts this trend; it motivates the entire review but is not proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhorse of Future Grid Computations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNGGBFRL

@misc{pith2026250104623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhorse of Future Grid Computations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNGGBFRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04623}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: The computation methods for modeling, controlling and optimizing the transforming grid are evolving rapidly. We review and systemize knowledge for a special class of computation methods that solve large-scale power grid optimization problems. Summary: Large-scale grid optimizations are pertinent for, amongst other things, hedging against risk due to resource stochasticity, evaluating aggregated DERs' impact on grid operation and design, and improving the overall efficiency of grid operation in terms of cost, reliability, and carbon footprint. We attribute the continual growth in scale and complexity of grid optimizations to a large influx of new spatial and temporal features in both transmission (T) and distribution (D) networks. Therefore, to systemize knowledge in the field, we discuss the recent advancements in T and D systems from the viewpoint of mechanistic physics-based and emerging data-driven methods. Findings: We find that while mechanistic physics-based methods are leading the science in solving large-scale grid optimizations, data-driven techniques, especially physics-constrained ones, are emerging as an alternative to solve otherwise intractable problems. We also find observable gaps in the field and ascertain these gaps from the paper's literature review and by collecting and synthesizing feedback from industry experts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Large scale multi-period optimal power flow with energy storage systems using differential dynamic programming,

    A. Agarwal and L. Pileggi, “Large scale multi-period optimal power flow with energy storage systems using differential dynamic programming,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1750–1759,

  2. [37]

    Equivalent circuit formula- tion for solving ac optimal power flow,

    M. Jereminov, A. Pandey, and L. Pileggi, “Equivalent circuit formula- tion for solving ac optimal power flow,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 2354–2365, 2018

    2018

  3. [41]

    Employing ad- versarial robustness techniques for large-scale stochastic optimal power flow,

    A. Agarwal, P. L. Donti, J. Z. Kolter, and L. Pileggi, “Employing ad- versarial robustness techniques for large-scale stochastic optimal power flow,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 212, p. 108 497, 2022,issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108497 . [Online]. Available: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article/p...

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [51]

    Pandey, S

    A. Pandey, S. Li, and L. Pileggi, To appear inPower Systems Op- eration with 100% Renewable Energy Sources, Combined Transmission and Distribution State-Estimation for Future Electric Grids . Elsevier, 2023

    2023

  5. [153]

    Steady-state simulation for combined trans- mission and distribution systems,

    A. Pandey and L. Pileggi, “Steady-state simulation for combined trans- mission and distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1124–1135, 2019

    2019

  6. [105]

    Dc3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,

    P. L. Donti, D. Rolnick, and J. Z. Kolter, “Dc3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.12225 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [107]

    Predicting ac optimal power flows: Combining deep learning and lagrangian dual methods,

    F. Fioretto, T. W. Mak, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Predicting ac optimal power flows: Combining deep learning and lagrangian dual methods,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 34, 2020, pp. 630–637

    2020

  8. [108]

    High- fidelity machine learning approximations of large-scale optimal power flow,

    M. Chatzos, F. Fioretto, T. W. Mak, and P. Van Hentenryck, “High- fidelity machine learning approximations of large-scale optimal power flow,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16356 , 2020. 26 Amritanshu Pandey and Mads R. Almassalkhi and Samuel Chevalier

    arXiv 2006

  9. [109]

    Learning Regionally Decentralized AC Optimal Power Flows with ADMM

    T. W. Mak, M. Chatzos, M. Tanneau, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Learn- ing regionally decentralized ac optimal power flows with admm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03787, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  10. [111]

    Compact Optimization Learning for AC Optimal Power Flow

    S. Park, W. Chen, T. W. Mak, and P. Van Hentenryck, “Compact opti- mization learning for ac optimal power flow,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08840, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  11. [117]

    Data-driven probabilistic constraint elim- ination for accelerated optimal power flow,

    C. Crozier and K. Baker, “Data-driven probabilistic constraint elim- ination for accelerated optimal power flow,” in 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , 2022, pp. 1–5. doi: 10 . 1109/PESGM48719.2022.9916838

    arXiv 2022

  12. [40]

    Data-driven contingency selection for fast security constrained optimal power flow,

    C. Crozier, K. Baker, Y. Du, J. Mohammadi, and M. Li, “Data-driven contingency selection for fast security constrained optimal power flow,” in 2022 17th International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Ap- plied to Power Systems (PMAPS) , 2022, pp. 1–6. doi: 10 . 1109 / PMAPS53380.2022.9810574

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [28]

    Learning to solve large-scale security-constrained unit commitment problems,

    ´A. S. Xavier, F. Qiu, and S. Ahmed, “Learning to solve large-scale security-constrained unit commitment problems,” INFORMS Journal on Computing , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 739–756, 2021

    2021

  14. [114]

    Data-driven screen- ing of network constraints for unit commitment,

    S. Pineda, J. M. Morales, and A. Jim´ enez-Cordero, “Data-driven screen- ing of network constraints for unit commitment,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 3695–3705, 2020. doi: 10.1109/ TPWRS.2020.2980212

    arXiv 2020

  15. [67]

    Luo and J

    X. Luo and J. Zhao, Private email exchange: Paper on emerging trends in large-scale optimization (Discussions on Gaps in Industry Large-scale Optimizations), 11 Feb. 2023

    2023

  16. [68]

    Cheung, Private email exchange: Updates and a Paper on Large- Scale Grid Optimization (Discussions on Gaps in Industry Large-scale Optimization), 8 Feb

    K. Cheung, Private email exchange: Updates and a Paper on Large- Scale Grid Optimization (Discussions on Gaps in Industry Large-scale Optimization), 8 Feb. 2023. Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhorse of Future Grid Computations 23

    2023

  17. [162]

    Jereminov, Private email exchange: Paper on emerging trends in large-scale optimization (Discussions on Gaps in Industry Large-scale Optimizations), 3rd March 2023

    M. Jereminov, Private email exchange: Paper on emerging trends in large-scale optimization (Discussions on Gaps in Industry Large-scale Optimizations), 3rd March 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [163]

    Eco- nomic dispatch with distributed energy resources: Co-optimization of transmission and distribution systems,

    X. Zhou, C.-Y. Chang, A. Bernstein, C. Zhao, and L. Chen, “Eco- nomic dispatch with distributed energy resources: Co-optimization of transmission and distribution systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1994–1999, 2021. doi: 10.1109/LCSYS.2020.3044542

    arXiv 1994

Show all 163 references
  1. [1]

    Hippo – a software platform for electricity market research and development - crada 485,

    F. Pan, “Hippo – a software platform for electricity market research and development - crada 485,” Nov. 2021. doi: 10.2172/1899574. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1899574

    2021

  2. [2]

    A distributed framework for solving and benchmarking security constrained unit commitment with warm start,

    Y. Chen, F. Wang, Y. Ma, and Y. Yao, “A distributed framework for solving and benchmarking security constrained unit commitment with warm start,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 711–720, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Bi-level two-stage stochastic scuc for iso day-ahead scheduling considering uncertain wind power and demand response,

    N. Gong, X. Luo, and D. Chen, “Bi-level two-stage stochastic scuc for iso day-ahead scheduling considering uncertain wind power and demand response,” The Journal of Engineering , vol. 2017, no. 13, pp. 2549– 2554, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1049/joe.2017.0787 . eprint: http...

    2017

  4. [4]

    A branch-and-cut benders decomposition algorithm for transmission expansion planning,

    S. Huang and V. Dinavahi, “A branch-and-cut benders decomposition algorithm for transmission expansion planning,” IEEE Systems Jour- nal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 659–669, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Optimal expansion planning considering storage investment and sea- sonal effect of demand and renewable generation,

    B. Canizes, J. Soares, F. Lezama, C. Silva, Z. Vale, and J. M. Corchado, “Optimal expansion planning considering storage investment and sea- sonal effect of demand and renewable generation,” Renewable Energy, vol. 138, pp. 937–954, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Bilevel mixed-integer transmission expan- sion planning,

    H. Haghighat and B. Zeng, “Bilevel mixed-integer transmission expan- sion planning,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 7309–7312, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Power system planning: Advancements in capacity expansion modeling,

    I. Chernyakhovskiy, M. Joshi, and A. Rose, “Power system planning: Advancements in capacity expansion modeling,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), Tech. Rep., 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Practical guidelines for solving diffi- cult linear programs,

    E. Klotz and A. M. Newman, “Practical guidelines for solving diffi- cult linear programs,” Surveys in Operations Research and Manage- ment Science, vol. 18, no. 1-2, pp. 1–17, 2013

    2013

  9. [9]

    Solving a large energy system optimization model using an open-source solver,

    M. Macmillan, K. Eurek, W. Cole, and M. D. Bazilian, “Solving a large energy system optimization model using an open-source solver,”Energy Strategy Reviews, vol. 38, p. 100 755, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    Static state estimation in electric power systems,

    F. C. Schweppe and E. J. Handschin, “Static state estimation in electric power systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 972–982, 1974. 18 Amritanshu Pandey and Mads R. Almassalkhi and Samuel Chevalier

    1974

  11. [11]

    Abur and A

    A. Abur and A. G. Exposito, Power system state estimation: theory and implementation . CRC press, 2004

    2004

  12. [12]

    Stochastic scuc considering compressed air energy storage and wind power generation: A techno-economic approach with static voltage sta- bility analysis,

    M. Ghaljehei, A. Ahmadian, M. A. Golkar, T. Amraee, and A. Elkamel, “Stochastic scuc considering compressed air energy storage and wind power generation: A techno-economic approach with static voltage sta- bility analysis,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Sy...

    2018

  13. [13]

    Mip reformulation for max-min problems in two-stage robust scuc,

    H. Ye, J. Wang, and Z. Li, “Mip reformulation for max-min problems in two-stage robust scuc,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1237–1247, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Robust multi-period opf with storage and renewables,

    R. A. Jabr, S. Karaki, and J. A. Korbane, “Robust multi-period opf with storage and renewables,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2790–2799, 2014

    2014

  15. [15]

    Global optimization of multi-period optimal power flow,

    A. Gopalakrishnan, A. U. Raghunathan, D. Nikovski, and L. T. Biegler, “Global optimization of multi-period optimal power flow,” in 2013 American Control Conference, IEEE, 2013, pp. 1157–1164

    2013

  16. [16]

    Recent developments in security-constrained ac optimal power flow: Overview of challenge 1 in the arpa-e grid optimization competition,

    I. Aravena, D. K. Molzahn, S. Zhang, et al. , “Recent developments in security-constrained ac optimal power flow: Overview of challenge 1 in the arpa-e grid optimization competition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07843, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [17]

    A gener- alised approach for efficient computation of look ahead security con- strained optimal power flow,

    L. Varawala, G. D´ an, M. R. Hesamzadeh, and R. Baldick, “A gener- alised approach for efficient computation of look ahead security con- strained optimal power flow,” European Journal of Operational Re- search, 2023, issn: 0377-2217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejor.2023.0...

    2023 doi

  18. [18]

    Gp cc-opf: Gaus- sian process based optimization tool for chance-constrained optimal power flow,

    M. Mitrovic, O. Kundacina, A. Lukashevich, et al. , “Gp cc-opf: Gaus- sian process based optimization tool for chance-constrained optimal power flow,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08454 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [19]

    Speeding up energy system models-a best practice guide,

    Y. Scholz, B. Fuchs, F. Borggrefe, et al. , “Speeding up energy system models-a best practice guide,” 2020

    2020

  20. [20]

    Large-scale integration of renewable energies and impact on storage demand in a european renewable power system of 2050,

    C Bussar, P St¨ ocker, Z Cai,et al., “Large-scale integration of renewable energies and impact on storage demand in a european renewable power system of 2050,” Energy Procedia, vol. 73, pp. 145–153, 2015

    2015

  21. [21]

    The national energy modeling system: An overview 2018,

    S. Nalley, A. LaRose, J. Diefenderfer, J. Staub, J. Turnure, and L. Westfall, “The national energy modeling system: An overview 2018,” Washington DC: US Department of Energy, Tech. Rep., 2019

    2018

  22. [22]

    Im- proving power system modeling. a tool to link capacity expansion and production cost models,

    V. Diakov, W. Cole, P. Sullivan, G. Brinkman, and R. Margolis, “Im- proving power system modeling. a tool to link capacity expansion and production cost models,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), Tech. Rep., 2015. Large-scale Grid Optimization: ...

    2015

  23. [23]

    Multi-operator production cost modeling,

    C. Barrows, B. McBennett, J. Novacheck, D. Sigler, J. Lau, and A. Bloom, “Multi-operator production cost modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 4429–4437, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    Extending iso operational software to long-term production cost models,

    J. David, B. Gisin, Q. Gu, and B. Thomas, “Extending iso operational software to long-term production cost models,” in Proc. FERC Tech. Conf., pp. 1–28, Jun. 26, 2019 , FERC, 2019, pp. 1–28

    2019

  25. [25]

    Challenges of plan- ning for high renewable futures: Experience in the us midcontinent elec- tricity market,

    C.-H. Tsai, A. Figueroa-Acevedo, M. Boese, et al., “Challenges of plan- ning for high renewable futures: Experience in the us midcontinent elec- tricity market,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 131, p. 109 992, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    Switch 2.0: A modern platform for planning high-renewable power systems,

    J. Johnston, R. Henriquez-Auba, B. Maluenda, and M. Fripp, “Switch 2.0: A modern platform for planning high-renewable power systems,” SoftwareX, vol. 10, p. 100 251, 2019, issn: 2352-7110. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2019.100251. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sci...

    2019

  27. [27]

    Security-constrained unit commit- ment for electricity market: Modeling, solution methods, and future challenges,

    Y. Chen, F. Pan, F. Qiu, et al. , “Security-constrained unit commit- ment for electricity market: Modeling, solution methods, and future challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 2022

    2022

  28. [29]

    A high performance computing based market economics driven neigh- borhood search and polishing algorithm for security constrained unit commitment,

    Y. Chen, F. Pan, J. Holzer, E. Rothberg, Y. Ma, and A. Veeramany, “A high performance computing based market economics driven neigh- borhood search and polishing algorithm for security constrained unit commitment,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 292–3...

    2021

  29. [30]

    Revenue adequate prices for chance- constrained electricity markets with variable renewable energy sources,

    X. Shi, L. F. Zuluaga, et al. , “Revenue adequate prices for chance- constrained electricity markets with variable renewable energy sources,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01233 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [31]

    Stochastic and private energy system optimization,

    V. Dvorkin, “Stochastic and private energy system optimization,” 2020

    2020

  31. [32]

    Optimal multi-period dis- patch of distributed energy resources in unbalanced distribution feed- ers,

    N. Nazir, P. Racherla, and M. Almassalkhi, “Optimal multi-period dis- patch of distributed energy resources in unbalanced distribution feed- ers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2683– 2692, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2963249

    2020

  32. [34]

    Multi- period optimal power flow for identification of critical elements in a country scale high voltage power grid,

    V. Vasylius, A. Jonaitis, S. Gudˇ zius, and V. Kopustinskas, “Multi- period optimal power flow for identification of critical elements in a country scale high voltage power grid,” Reliability Engineering & Sys- tem Safety , vol. 216, p. 107 959, 2021, issn: 0951-8320. doi: htt...

    2021

  33. [35]

    Toward the next generation of multiperiod optimal power flow solvers,

    D. Kourounis, A. Fuchs, and O. Schenk, “Toward the next generation of multiperiod optimal power flow solvers,” IEEE Transactions on Power 20 Amritanshu Pandey and Mads R. Almassalkhi and Samuel Chevalier Systems, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 4005–4014, 2018. doi: 10 . 1109 / TPWRS . 20...

    2018

  34. [36]

    Mathematical programming formulations for the alternating current optimal power flow problem,

    D. Bienstock, M. Escobar, C. Gentile, and L. Liberti, “Mathematical programming formulations for the alternating current optimal power flow problem,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 314, no. 1, pp. 277– 315, 2022

    2022

  35. [38]

    Two-stage homotopy method to incorporate discrete control variables into ac-opf,

    T. McNamara, A. Pandey, A. Agarwal, and L. Pileggi, “Two-stage homotopy method to incorporate discrete control variables into ac-opf,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 212, p. 108 283, 2022

    2022

  36. [42]

    Stochastic ac optimal power flow: A data-driven approach,

    I. Mezghani, S. Misra, and D. Deka, “Stochastic ac optimal power flow: A data-driven approach,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 189, p. 106 567, 2020, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. epsr.2020.106567. [Online]. Available:https://www.sciencedirect. com/s...

    2020

  37. [43]

    Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A re- view of methods and applications,

    L. A. Roald, D. Pozo, A. Papavasiliou, D. K. Molzahn, J. Kazempour, and A. Conejo, “Power systems optimization under uncertainty: A re- view of methods and applications,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 214, p. 108 725, 2023

    2023

  38. [44]

    Chance-constrained opti- mal power flow: Risk-aware network control under uncertainty,

    D. Bienstock, M. Chertkov, and S. Harnett, “Chance-constrained opti- mal power flow: Risk-aware network control under uncertainty,” Siam Review, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 461–495, 2014

    2014

  39. [45]

    Invest- ment in electricity generation and transmission,

    A. J. Conejo, L. Baringo, S. J. Kazempour, and A. S. Siddiqui, “Invest- ment in electricity generation and transmission,” Cham Zug, Switzer- land: Springer International Publishing , vol. 119, 2016

    2016

  40. [46]

    A genetic algorithm for transmission network expansion planning con- sidering line maintenance,

    M. Mahdavi, A. R. Kheirkhah, L. H. Macedo, and R. Romero, “A genetic algorithm for transmission network expansion planning con- sidering line maintenance,” in 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) , Ieee, 2020, pp. 1–6. Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhor...

    2020

  41. [47]

    A hierar- chical modeling for reactive power optimization with joint transmission and distribution networks by curve fitting,

    T. Ding, C. Li, C. Huang, Y. Yang, F. Li, and F. Blaabjerg, “A hierar- chical modeling for reactive power optimization with joint transmission and distribution networks by curve fitting,” IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2739–2748, 2017

    2017

  42. [48]

    Coordinated optimization control method of transmission and distribution network,

    S. Li, T. Yu, T. Pu, J. Ming, and S. Fan, “Coordinated optimization control method of transmission and distribution network,” in 2016 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), 2016, pp. 2215–2219.doi: 10.1109/APPEEC.2016.7779880

    2016

  43. [49]

    Towards the optimization of integrated transmission- distribution networks via the rapid prototyping of opf formulations with powermodelsitd.jl,

    P. Juan Ospina, “Towards the optimization of integrated transmission- distribution networks via the rapid prototyping of opf formulations with powermodelsitd.jl,” in Fifth Workshop on Autonomous Energy Systems, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2022

    2022

  44. [50]

    Global state estimation for whole transmission and distribution networks,

    H. Sun and B. Zhang, “Global state estimation for whole transmission and distribution networks,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 187–195, 2005

    2005

  45. [52]

    Accelerated probabilistic state estimation in distribution grids via model order reduction,

    S. Chevalier, L. Schenato, and L. Daniel, “Accelerated probabilistic state estimation in distribution grids via model order reduction,” in 2021 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , 2021, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/PESGM46819.2021.9638151

    2021

  46. [53]

    Data-driven learning- based optimization for distribution system state estimation,

    A. S. Zamzam, X. Fu, and N. D. Sidiropoulos, “Data-driven learning- based optimization for distribution system state estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 4796–4805, 2019

    2019

  47. [54]

    Fully distributed state estimation for wide-area monitoring systems,

    L. Xie, D.-H. Choi, S. Kar, and H. V. Poor, “Fully distributed state estimation for wide-area monitoring systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1154–1169, 2012

    2012

  48. [55]

    A distributed state estimation method for power systems incorporating linear and nonlinear models,

    Y. Guo, W. Wu, B. Zhang, and H. Sun, “A distributed state estimation method for power systems incorporating linear and nonlinear models,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , vol. 64, pp. 608–616, 2015

    2015

  49. [56]

    A distributed gauss-newton method for power system state estimation,

    A. Minot, Y. M. Lu, and N. Li, “A distributed gauss-newton method for power system state estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 3804–3815, 2015

    2015

  50. [57]

    Learning to optimize power distribution grids using sensitivity-informed deep neural networks,

    M. K. Singh, S. Gupta, V. Kekatos, G. Cavraro, and A. Bernstein, “Learning to optimize power distribution grids using sensitivity-informed deep neural networks,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Com- munications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (Smar...

    2020

  51. [58]

    Optimal Opera- tion of Distribution Feeders in Smart Grids,

    S. Paudyal, C. A. Canizares, and K. Bhattacharya, “Optimal Opera- tion of Distribution Feeders in Smart Grids,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4495–4503, 2011. doi: 10. 1109/TIE.2011.2112314. 22 Amritanshu Pandey and Mads R. Almassalkhi and S...

    2011

  52. [59]

    Load Flow in Multiphase Distribution Networks: Existence, Unique- ness, Non-Singularity and Linear Models,

    A. Bernstein, C. Wang, E. Dall’Anese, J.-Y. Le Boudec, and C. Zhao, “Load Flow in Multiphase Distribution Networks: Existence, Unique- ness, Non-Singularity and Linear Models,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 5832–5843, Nov. 2018, issn: 0885- 8950,...

    2018

  53. [60]

    On the Solution of the Op- timal Power Flow for Three-Phase Radial Distribution Networks With Energy Storage,

    E. Stai, C. Wang, and J.-Y. Le Boudec, “On the Solution of the Op- timal Power Flow for Three-Phase Radial Distribution Networks With Energy Storage,” en, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Sys- tems, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 187–199, Mar. 2021, issn: 2325-5870, 2372-2533. doi:...

    2021

  54. [61]

    Optimal Power Flow Pursuit,

    E. Dall’Anese and A. Simonetto, “Optimal Power Flow Pursuit,” en, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 942–952, Mar. 2018, issn: 1949-3053, 1949-3061. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2016.2571982 . [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7480375/ (visited on ...

    2018

  55. [62]

    Chance-Constrained AC Optimal Power Flow for Distribution Systems With Renewables,

    E. DallAnese, K. Baker, and T. Summers, “Chance-Constrained AC Optimal Power Flow for Distribution Systems With Renewables,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3427–3438, Sep. 2017, issn: 0885-8950, 1558-0679. doi: 10 . 1109 / TPWRS . 2017 . 2656080. ...

    2017

  56. [63]

    Hierarchical, grid-aware, and economically optimal coordination of distributed energy resources in realistic distribution systems,

    M. Almassalkhi, S. Brahma, N. Nazir, et al., “Hierarchical, grid-aware, and economically optimal coordination of distributed energy resources in realistic distribution systems,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 23, p. 6399, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    A data- driven stochastic reactive power optimization considering uncertain- ties in active distribution networks and decomposition method,

    T. Ding, Q. Yang, Y. Yang, C. Li, Z. Bie, and F. Blaabjerg, “A data- driven stochastic reactive power optimization considering uncertain- ties in active distribution networks and decomposition method,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4994–5004, 2017

    2017

  58. [66]

    Leveraging two-stage adaptive robust optimization for power flexibility aggregation,

    X. Chen and N. Li, “Leveraging two-stage adaptive robust optimization for power flexibility aggregation,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 3954–3965, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2021.3068341

    2021

  59. [69]

    Regional energy deployment sys- tem (reeds) model documentation: Version 2020,

    J. Ho, J. Becker, M. Brown, et al. , “Regional energy deployment sys- tem (reeds) model documentation: Version 2020,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), Tech. Rep., 2021

    2020

  60. [70]

    A review of markal energy modeling,

    M. R. F. Zonooz, Z. Nopiah, A. M. Yusof, and K. Sopian, “A review of markal energy modeling,” European Journal of Scientific Research , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 352–361, 2009

    2009

  61. [71]

    Equivalent circuit programming for power flow analysis and optimization,

    M. Jereminov and L. Pileggi, “Equivalent circuit programming for power flow analysis and optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01351, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Robust power flow and three-phase power flow analyses,

    A. Pandey, M. Jereminov, M. R. Wagner, D. M. Bromberg, G. Hug, and L. Pileggi, “Robust power flow and three-phase power flow analyses,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 616–626, 2018

    2018

  63. [73]

    A configuration- component-based hybrid model for combined-cycle units in miso day- ahead market,

    C. Dai, Y. Chen, F. Wang, J. Wan, and L. Wu, “A configuration- component-based hybrid model for combined-cycle units in miso day- ahead market,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 883–896, 2018

    2018

  64. [74]

    Stochastic security-constrained unit commitment,

    L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, and T. Li, “Stochastic security-constrained unit commitment,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 800–811, 2007. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2007.894843

    2007

  65. [75]

    Demand response scheduling by stochastic scuc,

    M. Parvania and M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, “Demand response scheduling by stochastic scuc,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 89–98, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2010.2046430

    2010

  66. [76]

    Risk-adjusted unit commitment for systems with high penetra- tion of renewables,

    D. Osipov, S. A. Naqvi, S. R. Palepu, K. Kar, J. H. Chow, and A. Gupta, “Risk-adjusted unit commitment for systems with high penetra- tion of renewables,” in 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT) , IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  67. [77]

    History of optimal power flow and formulations,

    M. B. Cain, R. P. O’neill, A. Castillo, et al., “History of optimal power flow and formulations,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, vol. 1, pp. 1–36, 2012

    2012

  68. [78]

    Arpa-e grid optimization competition: Benchmark algo- rithm overview,

    C. J. Coffrin, “Arpa-e grid optimization competition: Benchmark algo- rithm overview,” Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), Tech. Rep., 2021

    2021

  69. [79]

    Benchmarking large-scale acopf solu- tions and optimality bounds,

    S. Gopinath and H. L. Hijazi, “Benchmarking large-scale acopf solu- tions and optimality bounds,” in 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2022, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/PESGM48719. 2022.9916662

    2022

  70. [80]

    Solving realistic security-constrained op- timal power flow problems,

    C. G. Petra and I. Aravena, “Solving realistic security-constrained op- timal power flow problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01669 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  71. [82]

    Computationally effi- cient solutions for large-scale security-constrained optimal power flow,

    M. Bazrafshan, K. Baker, and J. Mohammadi, “Computationally effi- cient solutions for large-scale security-constrained optimal power flow,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00585 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  72. [83]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,

    A. W¨ achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,” Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 2006. 24 Amritanshu Pandey and Mads R. Almassalkhi and Samuel Chevalier

    2006

  73. [84]

    Knitro 2.0 user’s manual,

    R. A. Waltz and J. Nocedal, “Knitro 2.0 user’s manual,” Ziena Opti- mization, Inc.[en ligne] disponible sur http://www. ziena. com (Septem- ber, 2010), vol. 7, pp. 33–34, 2004

    2010

  74. [85]

    Solving large-scale security constrained ac optimal power flow problems,

    A. Gholami, K. Sun, S. Zhang, and X. A. Sun, “Solving large-scale security constrained ac optimal power flow problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06787, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  75. [86]

    Beltistos: A robust interior point method for large-scale optimal power flow prob- lems,

    J. Kardoˇ s, D. Kourounis, O. Schenk, and R. Zimmerman, “Beltistos: A robust interior point method for large-scale optimal power flow prob- lems,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 212, p. 108 613, 2022

    2022

  76. [87]

    Model-predictive cascade miti- gation in electric power systems with storage and renewables—part i: Theory and implementation,

    M. R. Almassalkhi and I. A. Hiskens, “Model-predictive cascade miti- gation in electric power systems with storage and renewables—part i: Theory and implementation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 67–77, 2015. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2320982

    2015

  77. [88]

    Optimal corrective dispatch of un- certain virtual energy storage systems,

    M. Amini and M. Almassalkhi, “Optimal corrective dispatch of un- certain virtual energy storage systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 4155–4166, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2020. 2979173

    2020 doi

  78. [89]

    A market mechanism for solving multi-period optimal power flow exactly on ac networks with mixed participants,

    J. Warrington, P. Goulart, S. Mari´ ethoz, and M. Morari, “A market mechanism for solving multi-period optimal power flow exactly on ac networks with mixed participants,” in 2012 American Control Confer- ence (ACC), 2012, pp. 3101–3107. doi: 10.1109/ACC.2012.6315477

    2012

  79. [90]

    Transmission expansion planning: A review,

    S. Verma, V. Mukherjee, et al. , “Transmission expansion planning: A review,” in 2016 International Conference on Energy Efficient Tech- nologies for Sustainability (ICEETS) , IEEE, 2016, pp. 350–355

    2016

  80. [91]

    Transmission net- work expansion planning considering load correlation using unscented transformation,

    S. Abbasi, H. Abdi, S. Bruno, and M. La Scala, “Transmission net- work expansion planning considering load correlation using unscented transformation,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 103, pp. 12–20, 2018

    2018

  81. [92]

    Multiobjective transmission expansion plan- ning problem based on acopf considering load and wind power gener- ation uncertainties,

    S. Abbasi and H. Abdi, “Multiobjective transmission expansion plan- ning problem based on acopf considering load and wind power gener- ation uncertainties,” International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 27, no. 6, e2312, 2017

    2017

  82. [93]

    A distributed multiarea state estimation,

    G. N. Korres, “A distributed multiarea state estimation,” IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 73–84, 2011. doi: 10 . 1109/TPWRS.2010.2047030

    2011

  83. [94]

    Transition to a two-level linear state estimator—part ii: Algorithm,

    T. Yang, H. Sun, and A. Bose, “Transition to a two-level linear state estimator—part ii: Algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 54–62, 2010

    2010

  84. [95]

    Ai insights: The power sector in a post digital age,

    D. Mustafayeva et al. , “Ai insights: The power sector in a post digital age,” eurelectric, Tech. Rep., Nov. 2020

    2020

  85. [96]

    Machine learning for sustainable energy systems,

    P. L. Donti and J. Z. Kolter, “Machine learning for sustainable energy systems,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 719–747, 2021. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020220-061831 . eprint: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1146 / annurev - environ - 020220 -...

    2021 doi

  86. [97]

    Recent developments in machine learning for energy systems reliability management,

    L. Duchesne, E. Karangelos, and L. Wehenkel, “Recent developments in machine learning for energy systems reliability management,” Pro- ceedings of the IEEE , vol. 108, no. 9, pp. 1656–1676, 2020. doi: 10. 1109/JPROC.2020.2988715

    2020

  87. [98]

    Machine learning for optimal power flows,

    P. Van Hentenryck, “Machine learning for optimal power flows,” Tu- torials in Operations Research: Emerging Optimization Methods and Modeling Techniques with Applications, pp. 62–82, 2021

    2021

  88. [99]

    A survey on applica- tions of machine learning for optimal power flow,

    F. Hasan, A. Kargarian, and A. Mohammadi, “A survey on applica- tions of machine learning for optimal power flow,” in 2020 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC) , 2020, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ TPEC48276.2020.9042547

    2020

  89. [100]

    Learning optimal solutions for extremely fast ac optimal power flow,

    A. S. Zamzam and K. Baker, “Learning optimal solutions for extremely fast ac optimal power flow,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm), 2020, pp. 1–6.doi: 10.1109/SmartGridComm47815. 2020.9303008

    2020

  90. [101]

    Optimal power flow using graph neural networks,

    D. Owerko, F. Gama, and A. Ribeiro, “Optimal power flow using graph neural networks,” in ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2020, pp. 5930–5934. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP40776.2020.9053140

    2020

  91. [102]

    Warm-starting ac optimal power flow with graph neural net- works,

    F. Diehl, “Warm-starting ac optimal power flow with graph neural net- works,” in 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019) , 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  92. [103]

    Learning warm-start points for ac optimal power flow,

    K. Baker, “Learning warm-start points for ac optimal power flow,” in 2019 IEEE 29th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP) , 2019, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/MLSP.2019. 8918690

    2019 doi

  93. [104]

    A learning-boosted quasi-newton method for ac optimal power flow,

    K. Baker, “A learning-boosted quasi-newton method for ac optimal power flow,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.06074 , 2020

    2007 arXiv

  94. [106]

    Physics-informed neural net- works for ac optimal power flow,

    R. Nellikkath and S. Chatzivasileiadis, “Physics-informed neural net- works for ac optimal power flow,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 212, p. 108 412, 2022, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108412 . [Online]. Available: https://www. sciencedi...

    2022

  95. [110]

    Learning-accelerated admm for distributed dc optimal power flow,

    D. Biagioni, P. Graf, X. Zhang, A. S. Zamzam, K. Baker, and J. King, “Learning-accelerated admm for distributed dc optimal power flow,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 1–6, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ LCSYS.2020.3044839

    2022

  96. [112]

    Machine learning approaches to the unit com- mitment problem: Current trends, emerging challenges, and new strate- gies,

    Y. Yang and L. Wu, “Machine learning approaches to the unit com- mitment problem: Current trends, emerging challenges, and new strate- gies,” The Electricity Journal , vol. 34, no. 1, p. 106 889, 2021, Special Issue: Machine Learning Applications To Power System Planning And O...

    2021

  97. [113]

    A. S. Xavier and F. Qiu, Anl-ceeesa/miplearn v0.1, version v0.1, Nov

  98. [115]

    Synergistic integration of machine learning and mathematical optimization for unit commitment,

    J. Wu, P. B. Luh, Y. Chen, B. Yan, and M. A. Bragin, “Synergistic integration of machine learning and mathematical optimization for unit commitment,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , pp. 1–10, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3240106

    2023

  99. [116]

    Modeling the ac power flow equations with optimally compact neural networks: Application to unit commitment,

    A. Kody, S. Chevalier, S. Chatzivasileiadis, and D. Molzahn, “Modeling the ac power flow equations with optimally compact neural networks: Application to unit commitment,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 213, p. 108 282, 2022, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1...

    2022

  100. [118]

    Learning to run a power network challenge for training topology controllers,

    A. Marot, B. Donnot, C. Romero, et al. , “Learning to run a power network challenge for training topology controllers,” Electric Power Systems Research , vol. 189, p. 106 635, 2020, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2020.106635 . [Online]. Avail- able: https...

    2020

  101. [119]

    Learning to run a Power Network Challenge: a Retrospective Analysis,

    A. Marot, B. Donnot, G. Dulac-Arnold, et al. , “Learning to run a Power Network Challenge: a Retrospective Analysis,” arXiv e-prints , Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhorse of Future Grid Computations 27 arXiv:2103.03104, arXiv:2103.03104, Mar. 2021.doi: 10.48550/arXiv....

    2021 doi arXiv

  102. [120]

    Learning to run a power network with trust,

    A. Marot, B. Donnot, K. Chaouache, et al. , “Learning to run a power network with trust,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 212, p. 108 487, 2022, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . epsr . 2022.108487. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirec...

    2022

  103. [121]

    Grid operation- based outage maintenance planning,

    G. Crognier, P. Tournebise, M. Ruiz, and P. Panciatici, “Grid operation- based outage maintenance planning,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 190, p. 106 682, 2021, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.epsr.2020.106682 . [Online]. Available: https://www. scien...

    2021

  104. [122]

    Clemente, Northern europe’s energy hub looks to ibm garage and cloud pak for data to design a green energy future, 2021

    J. Clemente, Northern europe’s energy hub looks to ibm garage and cloud pak for data to design a green energy future, 2021. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.ibm.com/blog/northern-europes-energy-hub- looks- to- ibm- garage- and- cloud- pak- for- data- to- design- a- green-ene...

    2021

  105. [123]

    Learning to solve ac optimal power flow by differentiating through holomorphic embeddings,

    H. Lange, B. Chen, M. Berges, and S. Kar, “Learning to solve ac optimal power flow by differentiating through holomorphic embeddings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09622, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  106. [124]

    OptNet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

    B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “OptNet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Con- ference on Machine Learning, D. Precup and Y. W. Teh, Eds., ser. Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 70, PMLR, 2017, pp. 136–

    2017

  107. [125]

    NeuroMANCER: Neural Mod- ules with Adaptive Nonlinear Constraints and Efficient Regulariza- tions,

    A. Tuor, J. Drgona, M. Skomski, et al., “NeuroMANCER: Neural Mod- ules with Adaptive Nonlinear Constraints and Efficient Regulariza- tions,” 2022. [Online]. Available:https://github.com/pnnl/neuromancer

    2022

  108. [126]

    Efficient Distri- bution System Optimal Power Flow With Discrete Control of Load Tap Changers,

    S. R. Shukla, S. Paudyal, and M. R. Almassalkhi, “Efficient Distri- bution System Optimal Power Flow With Discrete Control of Load Tap Changers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2970–2979, Jul. 2019

    2019

  109. [127]

    Analytic Consid- erations and Design Basis for the IEEE Distribution Test Feeders,

    K. P. Schneider, B. A. Mather, B. C. Pal, et al. , “Analytic Consid- erations and Design Basis for the IEEE Distribution Test Feeders,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 3181– 3188, May 2018, issn: 0885-8950, 1558-0679. doi: 10 . 1109 / TPWRS . 2017....

    2018

  110. [128]

    Electrical Model-Free Voltage Calculations Using Neural Networks and Smart Meter Data,

    V. Bassi, L. F. Ochoa, T. Alpcan, and C. Leckie, “Electrical Model-Free Voltage Calculations Using Neural Networks and Smart Meter Data,” en, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , pp. 1–1, 2022, issn: 1949-3053, 1949-3061. doi: 10 . 1109 / TSG . 2022 . 3227602. [Online]. Available...

    2022

  111. [129]

    Optimal control configuration in distribution network via an exact OPF relax- ation method,

    H. Sekhavatmanesh, G. Ferrari-Trecate, and S. Mastellone, “Optimal control configuration in distribution network via an exact OPF relax- ation method,” en, in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Con- trol (CDC) , Cancun, Mexico: IEEE, Dec. 2022, pp. 5698–5704, isbn: 978-...

    2022

  112. [130]

    Hanif, R

    S. Hanif, R. Sadnan, T. E. Slay, et al. , On Distribution Grid Opti- mal Power Flow Development and Integration , en, arXiv:2212.04616 [cs, eess], Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: http : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2212.04616 (visited on 03/08/2023)

    2022 arXiv

  113. [131]

    Exact Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow in Radial Networks,

    L. Gan, N. Li, U. Topcu, and S. H. Low, “Exact Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow in Radial Networks,” en, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 72–87, Jan. 2015, issn: 0018- 9286, 1558-2523. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2014.2332712 . [Online]. Avail- able: ht...

    2015

  114. [132]

    Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribu- tion systems,

    M. Baran and F. Wu, “Optimal capacitor placement on radial distribu- tion systems,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 725–734, Jan. 1989, issn: 08858977. doi: 10.1109/61.19265. [On- line]. Available: http : / / ieeexplore . ieee . org / document / 19...

    1989 doi

  115. [133]

    Radial Distribution Load Flow Using Conic Programming,

    R. Jabr, “Radial Distribution Load Flow Using Conic Programming,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1458–1459, Aug. 2006, issn: 0885-8950. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2006.879234 . [On- line]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1664986/ (visited on...

    2006

  116. [134]

    On the existence and linear approx- imation of the power flow solution in power distribution networks,

    S. Bolognani and S. Zampieri, “On the existence and linear approx- imation of the power flow solution in power distribution networks,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 163–172, Jan. 2016, arXiv:1403.5031 [math], issn: 0885-8950, 1558-0679. doi: 10.1...

    2016 arXiv

  117. [135]

    Branch flow model: Relaxations and con- vexification—part i,

    M. Farivar and S. H. Low, “Branch flow model: Relaxations and con- vexification—part i,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2554–2564, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2255317

    2013

  118. [136]

    Branch Flow Model: Relaxations and Convexification—Part I,

    M. Farivar and S. H. Low, “Branch Flow Model: Relaxations and Convexification—Part I,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2554–2564, Aug. 2013, issn: 0885-8950, 1558-0679. doi: 10 . 1109 / TPWRS . 2013 . 2255317. [Online]. Available: http : / / ieeexp...

    2013

  119. [137]

    Voltage Positioning Using Co-Optimization of Controllable Grid Assets in Radial Networks,

    N. Nazir and M. Almassalkhi, “Voltage Positioning Using Co-Optimization of Controllable Grid Assets in Radial Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 2761–2770, 2021. doi: 10.1109/ TPWRS.2020.3044206. Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhorse of ...

    2021

  120. [138]

    Grid-aware aggregation and realtime disaggregation of distributed energy resources in radial networks,

    N. Nazir and M. Almassalkhi, “Grid-aware aggregation and realtime disaggregation of distributed energy resources in radial networks,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. -, pp. –, 2021. doi: 10 . 1109 / TPWRS.2021.3121215

    2021

  121. [139]

    Exploring reactive power limits on wind farm collector networks with convex inner ap- proximations,

    N. Nazir, I. A. Hiskens, and M. R. Almassalkhi, “Exploring reactive power limits on wind farm collector networks with convex inner ap- proximations,” in IREP Symposium - Bulk Power System Dynamics and Control, Jul. 2022

    2022

  122. [140]

    Receding-horizon optimization of un- balanced distribution systems with time-scale separation for discrete and continuous control devices,

    N. Nazir and M. Almassalkhi, “Receding-horizon optimization of un- balanced distribution systems with time-scale separation for discrete and continuous control devices,” in Power Systems Computation Con- ference, Dublin, Ireland, Jun. 2018

    2018

  123. [141]

    Optimal dispatch of reactive power for voltage regulation and balancing in unbalanced distribution systems,

    D. B. Arnold, M. Sankur, R. Dobbe, K. Brady, D. S. Callaway, and A. Von Meier, “Optimal dispatch of reactive power for voltage regulation and balancing in unbalanced distribution systems,” en, in 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) , Boston, MA, USA: IEE...

    2016

  124. [142]

    An Exact Convex Formulation of the Optimal Power Flow in Radial Distribution Networks Including Transverse Components,

    M. Nick, R. Cherkaoui, J.-Y. L. Boudec, and M. Paolone, “An Exact Convex Formulation of the Optimal Power Flow in Radial Distribution Networks Including Transverse Components,” en, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 682–697, Mar. 2018, issn: 0018-9286...

    2018

  125. [143]

    AC OPF for Smart Distri- bution Networks: An Efficient and Robust Quadratic Approach,

    J. F. Franco, L. F. Ochoa, and R. Romero, “AC OPF for Smart Distri- bution Networks: An Efficient and Robust Quadratic Approach,” en, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4613–4623, Sep. 2018, issn: 1949-3053, 1949-3061. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2017.2665559 . [Online]...

    2018

  126. [144]

    Optimal Multi-Period Dispatch of Distributed Energy Resources in Unbalanced Distribu- tion Feeders,

    N. Nazir, P. Racherla, and M. Almassalkhi, “Optimal Multi-Period Dispatch of Distributed Energy Resources in Unbalanced Distribu- tion Feeders,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2683–2692, 2020

    2020

  127. [145]

    Available: https : / / proceedings

    [Online]. Available: https : / / proceedings . mlr . press / v70 / amos17a.html

  128. [146]

    Real-Time Feedback-Based Optimiza- tion of Distribution Grids: A Unified Approach,

    A. Bernstein and E. Dall’Anese, “Real-Time Feedback-Based Optimiza- tion of Distribution Grids: A Unified Approach,” en, IEEE Transac- tions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1197–1209, Sep. 2019, issn: 2325-5870, 2372-2533. doi: 10.1109/TCNS.2019.2929648 . 30...

    2019

  129. [147]

    Data-driven optimal voltage regulation using input convex neural networks,

    Y. Chen, Y. Shi, and B. Zhang, “Data-driven optimal voltage regulation using input convex neural networks,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 189, p. 106 741, 2020, issn: 0378-7796. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.epsr.2020.106741 . [Online]. Available: https://www. scienc...

    2020

  130. [148]

    Network-Level Optimization for Unbalanced Power Distribution System: Approximation and Relaxation,

    R. R. Jha and A. Dubey, “Network-Level Optimization for Unbalanced Power Distribution System: Approximation and Relaxation,” en, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 4126–4139, Sep. 2021, issn: 0885-8950, 1558-0679. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3066146. [Online]...

    2021

  131. [149]

    Learning distribution grid topologies: A tutorial,

    D. Deka, V. Kekatos, and G. Cavraro, “Learning distribution grid topologies: A tutorial,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10837 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  132. [150]

    Estimating distribution grid topologies: A graphical learning based approach,

    D. Deka, S. Backhaus, and M. Chertkov, “Estimating distribution grid topologies: A graphical learning based approach,” in 2016 Power Sys- tems Computation Conference (PSCC) , IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–7

    2016

  133. [151]

    Deep learning for opti- mal volt/var control using distributed energy resources,

    S. Gupta, S. Chatzivasileiadis, and V. Kekatos, “Deep learning for opti- mal volt/var control using distributed energy resources,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09557, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  134. [152]

    Building highly detailed synthetic electric grid data sets for combined transmission and dis- tribution systems,

    H. Li, J. L. Wert, A. B. Birchfield, et al. , “Building highly detailed synthetic electric grid data sets for combined transmission and dis- tribution systems,” IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy , vol. 7, pp. 478–488, 2020

    2020

  135. [154]

    Patopa: A data-driven parameter and topology joint estimation framework in distribution grids,

    J. Yu, Y. Weng, and R. Rajagopal, “Patopa: A data-driven parameter and topology joint estimation framework in distribution grids,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 4335–4347, 2017

    2017

  136. [155]

    Design of the helics high-performance transmission-distribution- communication-market co-simulation framework,

    B. Palmintier, D. Krishnamurthy, P. Top, S. Smith, J. Daily, and J. Fuller, “Design of the helics high-performance transmission-distribution- communication-market co-simulation framework,” in 2017 Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES), I...

    2017

  137. [156]

    Igms: An integrated iso- to-appliance scale grid modeling system,

    B. Palmintier, E. Hale, T. M. Hansen, et al., “Igms: An integrated iso- to-appliance scale grid modeling system,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1525–1534, 2016

    2016

  138. [157]

    Fncs: A framework for power system and communication networks co-simulation,

    S. Ciraci, J. Daily, J. Fuller, A. Fisher, L. Marinovici, and K. Agarwal, “Fncs: A framework for power system and communication networks co-simulation,” in Proceedings of the symposium on theory of modeling & simulation-DEVS integrative , 2014, pp. 1–8

    2014

  139. [158]

    Integrated transmission and distribution sys- tem power flow and dynamic simulation using mixed three-sequence/three- phase modeling,

    Q. Huang and V. Vittal, “Integrated transmission and distribution sys- tem power flow and dynamic simulation using mixed three-sequence/three- phase modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3704–3714, 2016. Large-scale Grid Optimization: The Workhors...

    2016

  140. [159]

    In- tegrated transmission-and-distribution system modeling of power sys- tems: State-of-the-art and future research directions,

    H. Jain, B. A. Bhatti, T. Wu, B. Mather, and R. Broadwater, “In- tegrated transmission-and-distribution system modeling of power sys- tems: State-of-the-art and future research directions,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 12, 2020

    2020

  141. [160]

    Modelling of integrated transmission and distribution grids based on synthetic dis- tribution grid models,

    M. Sarstedt, S. Garske, C. Blaufuß, and L. Hofmann, “Modelling of integrated transmission and distribution grids based on synthetic dis- tribution grid models,” in 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech , IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  142. [161]

    Combined trans- mission and distribution test system to study high penetration of dis- tributed solar generation,

    N. Samaan, M. A. Elizondo, B. Vyakaranam, et al., “Combined trans- mission and distribution test system to study high penetration of dis- tributed solar generation,” in 2018 IEEE/PES Transmission and Dis- tribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) , IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9

    2018

  143. [166]

    Brunner, Private email exchange: RE: Grid Optimization and In- dustry Needs/interests, 13 Mar

    C. Brunner, Private email exchange: RE: Grid Optimization and In- dustry Needs/interests, 13 Mar. 2023

    2023

  144. [2020]

    5281 / zenodo

    doi: 10 . 5281 / zenodo . 4287568. [Online]. Available: https : //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4287568

    doi

  145. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3115636

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.