Learning to Solve Differential Equation Constrained Optimization Problems
Authors: Vincenzo Di Vito Francesco
Mostafa Mohammadian
Kyri Baker
Ferdinando Fioretto
Venue: ICLR 2025 Spotlight (2025)
Keywords: Learning-based optimization proxy
differential equations constrained optimization
neural differential equations
system dynamics
Primary area: neurosymbolic & hybrid AI systems (physics-informed, logic & formal reasoning, etc.)

Abstract: Differential equations (DE) constrained optimization plays a critical role in numerous scientific and engineering fields, including energy systems, aerospace engineering, ecology, and finance, where optimal configurations or control strategies must be determined for systems governed by ordinary or stochastic differential equations. Despite its significance, the computational challenges associated with these problems have limited their practical use. To address these limitations, this paper introduces a learning-based approach to DE-constrained optimization that combines techniques from proxy optimization \citep{kotary2021end} and neural differential equations \citep{chen2019neural}. The proposed approach uses a dual-network architecture, with one approximating the control strategies, focusing on steady-state constraints, and another solving the associated DEs. 
This combination enables the approximation of optimal strategies while accounting for dynamic constraints in near real-time.
Experiments across problems in energy optimization and finance modeling show that this method provides full compliance with dynamic constraints and it produces results up to 25 times more precise than other methods which do not explicitly model the system's dynamic equations.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
LEARNING TO SOLVE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS
Vincenzo Di Vito', Mostafa Mohammadian 2, Kyri Baker ?, Ferdinando Fioretto
1 Department of Computer Science, University Of Virginia, (eda8pe, fioretto) eviigiiiiii edu 2 College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado Boulder, {mostafa. .mhhamaadian ainn,, kyrij @ecoeeoooooooooooooooo edu
ABSTRACT
Differential equations (DE) constrained optimization plays a critical role in nu- merous scientific and engineering fields, including energy systems, aerospace gineering, ecology, and finance, where optimal configurations or control strategies must be determined for systems governed by ordinary or stochastic differential equations. Despite its significance, the computational challenges associated with these problems have limited their practical use. To address these limitations, this paper introduces learning-bar based approach to DE-constrained optimization that combines techniques from praxy optimization (Kotary et al. 202T) and neural differential equations (Chen et al. 2018). The proposed approach network architecture, with one approximating the control strategies, focusing on steady-state constraints, and another solving the associated DEs. This combina- tion enables the approximation of optimal strategies while accounting for dynamic constraints in near real-tine real-time. Experiments across problems in energy optimiza- tion and finance modeling show that this method provides full compliance with dynamic constraints and it produces results up to 25 times more precise than other methods which do not explicitly model the system's 's dynamic equations.
dual-
INTRODUCTION
In a wide array of scientific and engineering applications, differential equations (DEs) serve as fundamental tool to model dynamic phenomena where precise predictions and optimal control are crucial. These applications range from energy optimization, where generator dynamics are required to assess system stability, to aerospace engineering, relying trajectory optimization, and finance, where asset price prediction hinges on stochastic processes. Central to these applications is the op- timization of systems constrained by Ordinary (ODEs) or Stochastic (SDEs) Differential Equations, referred to as Do-cosstraeeed optimization problems. These problems entail not only solving the DEs but also optimizing decision variables subject the dynamics dictated by these equations.
This dual requirement, however, poses significant computational challenges. Traditional approaches, such shooting methods (Gerdts) 2003). collocation methods (Fairweather & Meade, (0200), and discretization techniques (Betts & Campbell] (205). are known to struggle with scalability and pre- cision, especially on high-dimensional and nonlinear systems, which are of interest in this paper. To address these challenges, this paper introduces a novel learning-
DE-optimization proxy that integrates advancements from two key methodologies: prexy optimizers (Kotary et al.) 2021) and neural differential equations (neural-DEs) (Chen et al.) 20118) Kidger 2022). In our approach, neural network serves as a proxy optimizer, approximating solutions to the decision problem while simultaneously leveraging another neural network to solve the underlying DEs. This novel dual- network architecture exploits primal-dual method to ensure that both the dynamics dictated by the DEs and the optimization objectives are concurrently learned and respected. Importantly, this optimization.
integration allows for end-to-end differentiation enabling efficient gradient-
The proposed method is validated across two domains: energy systems and financial modeling and optimization. The experimental results show the ability to directly handle DE in the optimization surrogate, which allows method to produce solutions that are up to 25 times more precise than

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
standard proxy optimization techniques. while also adhering to system dynamics. This precision improvement is important and opens new avenues for research and application in fields that demand high-fidelity dynamic modeling and optimal decision-making at low computational budgets.
Contributions. The paper makes the following contributions: (1) It introduces a novel learning- based method to efficiently approximate solutions of DE-constrained optimization problems. Our approach is a unique integration of neural-DE models to capture the system dynamics and proxy optimizers approximate the problem decision variables. These components are sinergistically integrated into model training via a primal-dual method. (2) It empirically demonstrates the impor- tance of incorporating the system dynamies into an optimization framework, by showing that proxy optimizers methods who neglect these dynamic behaviors systematically violate the DE require- ments. (3) It shows that capturing the system dynamics with neural differential surrogate models, leads up to 25 times higher solution quality compared to other learning- based approaches capturing the dynamics such as PINN (Raissi et al. 2019) or LSTM (Yu et al. 2019).
RELATED WORKS
Model Predictive Control (MPC) (Mayne et al. 2000 is key control system technique that pre- dicts future states over a time horizon to determine optimal control actions while satisfying con- straints. This involves solving an optimization problem using predicted states. Alternatively, DAE- constrained optimization (Blajer& & Kotodziejczyk 2004) directly incorporates the system's 's differ- ential and algebraic equations into the optimization problem via discretization, transforming into a umite-dimensiones creases problem dimensionality. The nonlinearities both optimization and system dynamics, along with the need for real-time solutions, make these approaches impractical in our setting.
form. However, while retaining dependence on independent variables. this in-
In recent years, there has been growing interest in leveraging neural network architectures to approx- imate solutions of challenging constrained optimization problems. Termed proxy optimizers, these methods create fast surrogate models by learning mappings from optimization problem parame- ters to optimal solutions (Kotary et al. (021I. Some approaches rely supervised learning with precomputed solutions (Fioretto et al. 2020). while others employ self-supervised strategies by ex- ploiting the problem's 's structure (Park & Van Hentenryck 2023). A major challenge in this setting is constraint satisfaction, often tackled through penalty-based methods (Fioretto et al., 2020). implicit layers (Donti et al., 2020), or efficient post-inference projection techniques (Kotary et al. 2024). Additionally, neural networks have been applied to approximate solutions of differential equations. Physics-Informee Neural Networks (PINNs) (Raissi et al. 2019) integrate physical laws within their architecture but face challenges in training and generalization (Wang et al. 2020 Kovachki et al., 2024). Neural differential equations (Kidger) 2022] Chen et al.]2018) provide an alternative by modeling system dynamics through parameterized hidden state derivatives, which allows to capture complex dynamics effectively from data observations.
Our work builds on these areas for surrogate modeling and introduces a learning-basse bbasnn approach to solve, for the first time to our knowledge, DE-constrained optimization problems in near real-time.
SETTINGS AND GOALS
Consider optimization problem constrained by system of ordinary differential equations
!
F(.vi))
Minimize (()))(T)) +
((),
(la)
s.t. dy(()= = Flu, t)t)
(1b)
v(0) I(u) g(u, (t)) < 0; h(u, v()) = 0,
(1c)
(1d)
where u = (uı,.... u,)) represents the vector of decision variables and (t) = (U (t)...., Vm (t))
denotes the state variables, each governed by differential equation dy,(t) = (1)),, u, ftd Here
to case notation the paper focuses on ODEs, and refers the reader Appendix A for extension SDE
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
each F; describes the dynamic behavior of the system through ODEs. The set of all such ODEs is captured by F, as defined in Constraint [lb). Note that these DEs are parametrized by decision variables u, rendering the coupling between the control strategy and the system's 's dynamic response highly interdependent. The objective function J (Ta) aims to minimize a combination of the running cost h which varies with the state and decision variables over time, and the terminal cost I., which depends on the final state y(")) and the decision variables u. The time horizon I defines the period over which the optimization takes place. Constraint (Ic) sets the initial conditions for the state variables based on the decision variables u. Additional constraints (Id) enforce sets of inequality and equality conditions on the state and decision variables, ensuring that the system constraints are met throughout the decision process.
Energy system example. For example, in the context of power system optimization, decision variables u capture generators' power outputs, and state variables yt) describe generator ro- tor angles and speeds, which are key for sys- tem stability. The system dynamics in F, cap- ture the dlectro-mechanice power network, and their initial conditions, as determined by (Ic), are set based on the deci- sion variables. The objective function J aims to minimize immediate operational costs like fuel consumption (œ) and address long-term costs (Z) over specific time horizon T. Optimizing the generator outputs is finally subject to engineering operational limits and physics constraints (Constraints [Td]. e.g. Ohm's and Kirkhoff's laws). An illustration is provided in Figure land the problem description in Appendix B
interactions in the
time
time
Figure 1: Decision variables u. represent genera- tors outputs, which are influenced by state vari- ables y describing rotor angles and speed.
CHILLLENGES
While being fundamental for many applications, Problem [ presents three key challenges:
1. Finding optimal solutions to Problem (1 is computationally intractable. Even without the differ- ential equation constraints, the decision version of the problem alone is NP-hard in general.
2. Achieving high-quality approximations of the system dynamics (Equations (b) and (Ic) in near real-time, poses the second significant challenge. The high dimensionality and non-linearity of these dynamics further complicate the task.
Finally, the integration of the system dynamics into the decision-making process for solving Prob- lem poses another challenge. Indeed, including differential equations (Ib) in the optimization framework renders traditional numerical methods impractical for real-time applications.
The next section focuses on providing a solution to each of these challenges.
4 DE-OPTIMIZATION PROXY
To address the challenges outlined above, the paper introduces DE-Optimization Proxy (DE-OP): fully differentiable DE-optimization surrogate. nutshell, DE-OP defines a dual-network archi- tecture, where one neural network, named F.,, approximates the optimal decision variables u", and another, denoted as Ny. approximates the associated state variables y()). based on the concept of neural differential equations. Here w and 0 represents the models' F.,, and No trainable parame- ters, respectively. An illustration of the overall framework and the resulting interaction of the dual network is provided in Figure 2 The subsequent discussion first describes these two components individually and then shows their integration by exploiting a primal-dual learning framework.
Optimizing over distribution of instances. To enable learnable mechanism for addressing DE- constrained optimization, DE-OP operates over a distribution II of problem instances induced by problem parameters Ç, and aims to train model across this distribution. The learning framework takes problem parameters Ç as inputs and generates outputs û, representing an approximation of the optimal decision variables while adhering to the constraint functions (Tb [d... With reference to
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
F Estimated decision variables
DE-OP Loss
Optimization problem parameters
IF (F.))))))
i
Noe
Estimated
5(0
<
state
variables
Estimated initial state variables
Figure 2: DE-OP uses a dual network architecture consisting of a proxy optimization model Fw to estimate the decision variables á and neural-DE model No to estimate the state-variables (t), with the objective function I (Fu (F), capturing the overall loss.
lap, the formal learning objective is:
Minimize w,0
E [J (F
(2a)
8 s.t.
1b
1d
(2b)
where u (C) and the state variables estimate is denoted as ÿ(t) - NN. Here, Ç pa- rameterizes each problem instance, representing constants such customer demands in the power system example. Although the problem structure remains consistent across instances, each one involves a distinct decision problem, leading to unique state variable trajectories. Given the com- plexity of solving Problem (2). the goal is to develop fast and accurate neural DE optimization surrogate. This approach uses the concept of proxy optimizers, which detailed next.
4.1 NEURAL OPTIMIZATION SURROGATE
The first objective is to establish neural network-basee mapping F 11 - U that transforms pa- rameters Ç ~ from a DE-constrained optimization problem (1) into optimal decisions u u²( E U, operating under the restriction that T O, (i.e. the dynamics of the system are absent). Practically, this mapping is modeled as a neural network F_, which learns to predict the optimal decision vari- ables from the problem parameters. The model training uses dataset D ((Si, wf) of N samples, with each sample (Ci, u,) including the observed problem parameters Ç, and the corre- sponding (steady-state) optimal decision variables u, The training objective is refine Fw in way that it closely approximates the ideal mapping F. Several approaches have been proposed to build such surrogate optimization solvers, many which leverage mathematical optimization prin- ciples (Fioretto et al.] 2020), Park & Van Hentenryck (203)) and implicit layers (Donti et al.) 2020)) to encourage or ensure constraint satisfaction (see Appendix [fr an in-depth discussion of such methods). Once trained, the model Fur can be used to generate near-optimal solutions at low in- ference times. We leverage this idea to learn the mapping F'. As shown in Figure 2 the estimated optimal decisions ů (C) are then fed to neural-DE model, which will be discussed next.
4.2 NEURAL ESTIMATION OF THE STATE VARIABLES
The second objective of DE-OP involves to efficiently capture the system dynamics of DE- constrained optimization problems. This achieved by developing neural DE models No to learn solutions of a parametric family of differential equations (Kidger (2022). Since these DE-surrogates are fully differentiable, they are particularly suitable for integration with the optimization surrogate introduced in the previous section, aligning with our goal defined in Equation (2).
The optimization proxy estimated solutions determine the initial state variables ( through the function I: 00) I(ū). As shown in Figure 2 given a solution ú, a neural-DE model Ng generates an estimate ğ of the state variables that satisfies:
(t(() No ((,,,t)e t)dt
(3a)
(0) = I I(ū).
(3b)
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
The remainder of this section details the methods by which the state variables are precisely estimated using a Neural Differential Equation model.
Model initialization and training. Given that the neural-DE model NV takes as input the estimated decision variables à provided by the DE-OP's optimization proxy Fur where à = F (C). it is practical to initialize (or hot-start) the neural-DE model effectively. To achieve this,
construct dataset = {(u', y (t)) where each un is a near-optimal decision sampled within the bounds specified by constraints g (e.g., ui ~ U(aj by) if Uj bound is defined by dj and b₁). The corre- sponding state trajectories y? (1) are obtained by numerically solving the differential equations with initial condition (0) = I [u,).. The neural-DE model is trained by minimizing the loss:
Minimize
[[ () (((0))
(4)
where x: = u and j(t) = =No(xr
Since F., approximates u", may introduce errors. To mitigate this, the dataset D constructed using near-optimal decisions u' sampled from the feasible bounds g. ensuring that NG is trained on a distribution Ih a This approach does not require exact optimal decisions and assumes only small estimation errors from Fu.. which is typically valid in practice.
Once trained, the neural-DE model Ng can accurately estimate state variables (t) for decisions á produced by Fu.. This integration enables end-to-end training of the DE-OP framework, ensuring that both decision and state variables are optimized cohesively, While other learning- methods, such Physics-Ine Informeed Neural Networks (PINN) (Raissi al., (019) and Long Short- -ermm Mem- ory (LSTM) models (Yu et al. 2019), can be used to efficiently estimate the state variables, due to generalization bias (PINN), and lack of dynamic equations modeling (LSTM), they produce sub- stantially less precise predictions than the neural-DE models. For a comparison of neural-DE. models with these alternative approaches across the experimental tasks described in Section 5 to Appendices D.I and E.1
please refer
4.3 HANDLING STATIC AND DYNAMICS CONSTRAINTS JOINTLY
To integrate the neural-DE DE models within the decision process, this paper proposes a Lagrangian Dual (LD) learning approach, which is inspired by the generalized augmented Lagrangian relax- ation technique (Hestenes) 1969) adopted in classic optimization. In Lagrangian relaxation, some or all the problem constraints are relaxed into the objective function using Lagrangian multipliers to capture the penalty induced by violating them. The proposed formulation leverages Lagrangian duality to integrate trainable and weighted regularization terms that encapsulate both the static and dynamic constraints violations. When all the constraints are relaxed, the violation-basee Lagrangian relaxation of problem (I)
defines as
Minimize I(u, v()) XT (1'( (u, v()) + + max(0, g(,, v())),
where J. g are defined in lal.
and
Id
respectively, and ht' is defined follows, rdy(t) - F(u, (t), t)dt
h (u,y(tt)
v() I(u)
(5)
h(u, y(t))
denotes the set of all equality constraints of problem (T). thus extending the constraints h in (d). with the system dynamics (Tb) and the initial conditions equations (Tc) written in an implicit form as above. Therein, An and X, are the vectors of Lagrange multipliers associated with functions h' and
g. e.g. Xie, X/ are associated with the i-th equality hy in h' and j-th inequality 9j in g, respectively. The key advantage of expressing the system dynamics (Ib) and initial conditions (Ic) in the same implicit form as the equality constraints h. (as shown 65), that the system dynamics can be treated in the same manner as the constraint functions h. This enables us to satisfy the system dynamics and the static set of constraints ensuring that they are incorporated scamlessly into the optimization process.
The proposed primal-dual learning method uses an iterative approach to find good values of the primal w, 8 and dual An 'y variables; it uses augmented modified Lagrangian loss function to train the prediction ú. (t) as employed
DF-OP (ū, u (()) = | - u=1 + AT N' (()) + X max(0, ( (())),
(6)
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Algorithm Primal Dual Learning for DE-Constrained Optimization
1: Input: Dataset D = ((C,, u;) } optimizer method, learning rate v/ and Lagrange step size p-
2: Initialize Lagrange multipliers A = 0. X =0. 0.
3: For each epoch = 0, 2......
4: For each (Ci, u D
5: ú; 4 Far (Ci), (i(t) Nox (Fu+ (S:),
6: Compute loss function: CDE-OP (ū,,
(ū;; ui (t)) using 6
7:
Update DE-OP model parameters:
wht f- w - 1n V, (F) (C), 20 NN
F (Fx (t).
gh+11 t 0 - V (F) u² Nox (S),))
8:
Update Lagrange multipliers:
A++ W
N plt'
2 + X pmax(0, g(a ((t)).
where | 12 represents the decision error, with respect steady-start optimal decision u², while 2,r h', (()) and X max (0, g( g(, ÿ({)) measures the constraint violations incurred by prediction = (C) and ÿ(t) = No(FF This accounts for the contribution of both net- works F,W during training. which is balanced via iterative updates of the Lagrange multipliers in (6) based on the amount of violation of the associated constraint function. To ease notation, in Equation 66) the dependency from parameters Ç is omitted. At iteration parameters w, 0 requires solving
finding the optimal
k+1 gh+t1 = arg min B(c.u))D CDD-OP (F3 (F) (FF (s), wil
where FA* and N denote the DE-OP's optimization and predictor models Fer and Neg iteration k. with A NN A This step is approximated using a stochastic gradient descent method
w h+1 = w
CDE-OP
(Fr (C), un .N (F),)))
gh+1 gh V C (F) (C). ,N (c).))
where y) denotes the learning rate and V and VoL represent the gradients of the loss function with respect to the parameters and 0, respectively, the current iteration k. Importantly, this step does not recomputes the training parameters from scratch, but updates the weights w, 6 based on their value at the previous iteration. Finally, the Lagrange multipliers are updated as
X X p)h (û, (())
k++ X pmax (0. gi (())),
It where p denotes the Lagrange step size. The overall training scheme is presented in Algorithm T takes as input the training dataset D = [(C,, u;) ) the learning rate 1 > O, and the Lagrange step size p > O. The Lagrange multipliers are initialized in line 2. As shown in Figure 2 for each sample in the dataset (line 4), the DE-OP's optimization model F., computes the predicted decisions ú; while No computes an estimate of the state variables (t) (line 5). The loss function CDE-OP is computed (line 6) incorporating both the objective and the constraints and using the predicted values ú, (t) and the Lagrange multipliers A/ and X The weights w. 0 of the DE-OP models Fu are then updated using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) (line 7). Finally, at the end of the epoch, the Lagrange multipliers are updated based on the respective constraints violations (line 8).
While the DE-OP model training algorithm is described extending the Lagrangian Dual Learning approach (Fioretto et al., 2020), the flexibility of DE-OP allows to leverage other proxy optimizer methods, such as the self-supervised Primal-Dual Learning (Park & Van Hentenryck] 2023), which could similarly be extended to integrate the system dynamics via neural-DE modeling within the DE- OP framework, the experiments will show. When near-optimal solutions u are not available, the term ù u" I|2 in Equation 6 can be replaced with J (u, (t)) to facilitate self-supervised learning, which has shown promising results (Donti et al. 2020 in variety of tasks.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
5 EXPERIMENTAL SETTING
This section evaluates the DE-OP model on a financial modeling and energy optimization tasks. Given the absence of other methods capable of meeting the stringent time requirements for solving DE-constrained optimization problems, we compare several proxy optimizer methods as baselines. However, these baselines focus on the "steady-state" aspects of the problem by omitting the system dynamic components, such as the objective term o and the system dynamic constraints (Ib) and Iee from Problem (T. They aim to approximate the optimal decision variables to u that could be obtained if the system was at steady-state. We evaluate the Lagrangian Dual approach (I.D) of Fioretto al. 2020), which uses penalty- -hased method for constraint satisfaction, Deep Constraint Completion and Correction (DC3) from Donti et al. (2020) that enforces constraint satisfaction technique, self-supervised learning (PDL) of Park & Van Henten- ryck (023) using augmented Lagrangian loss function, and method (MSE) that minimizes the mean squared error between the predicted solutions é and the pre-computed (steady-state) solutions u.. A comprehensive description of these methods is provided in Appendix C.1
through a completion-correttin
Furthermore, the comparison includes various learning-baat based DE-surrgate solvers in place of the
network No in our framework, including neural-differential equations Kidger 2022). PINNs Raissi
et al.] (019)). and LSTM networks. The experiments focus on two main aspects: (1) comparing
DE-OP with proxy optimizers that capture only the steady-state problems, focusing on the system
dynamics violations, and (2) assessing the effectiveness of the various surrogate DE-solver methods.
5.1 DYNAMIC PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION
The classical Markowitz Portfolio Optimization (Rubinstein, 2002), described by (9a) 9c0, consists of determining the investment allocations within portfolio to maximize a balance of return and risk. The paper extends this task by incorporating the stochastic dynamic (9d) of the asset prices, based on simplified Black-Schole model (Capiñski & Kopp 2012). This model represents real-world scenario where asset prices fluctuates, and investment decisions are made in advance, such as at the
market's 's opening, based on the final asset prices forecast. The task defines as:
Minimize
E BT- u + u Eu]
(9a)
s.t.
T
u
(9h)
0i 2 0 Vi E [n|]
(9c)
dy:(t) = (.y; dt + o. (1) Vi [n] (0)
(9d)
vi [n].
(9c)
where y(t) E I" represents the asset prices trend and y (T) denotes the asset prices at time hori- zon T in (9a). The asset price dynamics described by (9d) follow a stochastic differential equation with drift ps. volatility d; and Wiener process W,(t) (Rudzis) 2017). Decisions u E R" rep- resent fractional portfolio allocations. The objective minimizes Iu y()) L(u, y(T) with (u,y((),,) = 0, balancing risk via covariance matrix Σ and expected return (T) u.
Datasets and methods. The drift and volatility factors 14 2/(0.5, 1) and a; L1(0.05, 0.1) in (dd) are sampled from uniform distributions. Following (Sambharya et al. 2022),, initial asset prices (ce)/2 are obtained from the Nasdaq database (Nasdaq 2022) to form initial vectors { 10,000 split into 80% training, 10% validation, and 10% test sets. Asset price trends ytt) are generated using an SDE solver with Itô integration (Kloeden & Platen 2023). Given yT'), the convex solver cvxpy (Diamond & Boyd 2016) computes the optimal decision u" for supervision during training.
We evaluate the role of asset price predictors using three models: neural-SDE model, an LSTM, and a 2-layer Feed Forward ReLU network, each compared to numerical SDE solver, which is discussed in Appendix E, Figure Each model estimates final asset prices (T)), which inform the DE-OP model F.,, to estimate optimal decision allocations ñ = F., (ū))). A "static" baseline method uses only proxy optimizers (Lagrangian Dual, DC3, or PDL) to approximate decisions based on initial prices y0) Ç. Detailed comparisons of these approaches are provided in Appendix E.2
Results. A comparison between the DE-OP and the baseline methods is provided in Figure The figure reports experiments for 50 variable, while additional experiments are relegated to
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
the Appendix E.2 The x-axis categorizes the methods based on the type of asset price predictor used, or the lack of thereof, and reports the average optimality gap (in percentage) on the test set, defined as [L(x" (T(T)) ((())((()(((())))())) x 100. It measures the sub-optimality of the predicted (v(") solutions à with respect ground truth final asset price y(T),, across different methods.
The figure highlights the substantial perfor mance difference between the dynamic DE-
130
Opt. gap (%)
DE-OP
OP models and the static-only proxy optimizer methods, marked in the last column, denoted by No = 0. These static methods (DC3, LD, and PDL) fail to incorporate asset price dynamics, resulting in notably higher optimality gaps (ex- ceeding 100%). Notably, their predictions can be over twice as suboptimal as the optimal so- lutions derived from dynamic modeling.
Static-only (DC3)
50
Static-only (LD)
Static-only (PDL)
20
19-
9.
No =D-SDE AG =LSTM No #FFrrdd Na
DE-Optimization Proxy
In contrast, DE-OP models that incorporate Figure 3: Average Opt. gap with n 50 asset prices.
SDE models significantly outperform static methods. In particular, using neural-SDE predictors to model asset price dynamics results in much higher decision quality compared to both LSTM and Feed Forward models. Specifically, DE-OP with neural-SDR achieves the lowest optimality gap at 9.11%, successfully capturing the dynamics through an explicit modeling of the asset prices' gov- erning equations. In contrast, the LSTM model results in a notably higher optimality gap of 21.17%, approximately 2.5 times greater than that of DE-OP with neural-SDE, attributable to its lack of dy- namic modeling. The Feed Forward model performs significantly worse with an optimality gap of 102.45% for LD, indicating its inability to capture the dependenn nature of asset pricing data.
The dynamic forecasting results in Appendix E. display different levels of precision of the final asset prices predictions among the dynamic predictors considered, which ultimately led to different decision quality. In particular, DE-OP with a neural-SDE model performs consistently better than the LSTM model and produces up to 25x better decisions (measured in terms of optimality gap) than any static-only proxy optimizer method. This stark contrast underscores the effectiveness of DE-OP models in leveraging dynamic asset price predictors to improve decision quality.
5.2 STABILITY-CONSTRAIIN AC-OPTIMAL POWER FLOW
We now turn on studying a real-world problem in power systems, which arises from integration of Synchronous Generator Dynamics with the Alternating Current Optimal Power Flow (AC OPF) problem. The AC OPF, detailed in Appendix Model ( is foundational in power systems for finding cost-effective generator dispatches that meet demand while complying with physical and engineering constraints. Traditionally addressed as a steady-state snapshot, the AC OPF problem requires frequent resolution (e.g., every 10-15 minutes) due to fluctuating loads, posing challenges in maintaining operational continuity and system stability (Hatziargyriou et al. 2021). Given the non-convexity, high dimensionality, and computational demands of this problem, proxy optimizers have emerged as a viable alternative to traditional numerical solvers. However, as shown later in this section, existing approaches such those in DDntt et al. (2020) and FForetto et al. (2020), which focus on the steady-state aspect, fail to address the dynamic system requirements adequately.
The integration of the generator dynamics and related stability constraints into the steady-state AC- OPF formulation leads to the siabilitycoonstrinne AC-OPF problem, which is detailed in Appendix B.3 Here, the decision variables u. comprising generator power outputs and bus voltages, influence the state variables yt),, representing generator rotor angles and speeds. This coupling renders the problem particularly challenging. The objective is to optimize power dispatch costs, while satisfying demand, network constraints, and ensuring system stability as described by [Td.. DE-OP enables, for the first time to our knowledge, the integration of generator dynamics within the optimization process. This integration is key for system stability. Our implementation uses neural-ODE (Chen) et al. 2018) models No, assigned individually to each generator. A comparative analysis of neural- ODEs, PINNs and numerical solver for capturing these dynamics is available in Appendix DDI
Datasets. DE-OP is evaluated on two key power networks, the WSCC and IEEE 57 bus-systems Babaeennjjassaroooklace et al. 2021) under various operating system conditions, studied in
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Unstable dyanmuss (9%)
DE-OP
Unstable dyanmirs (%)
12
DC3
DC5
to
LD
8
MSB
6
12
20
Epoch
Epoch
Figure 4: WSCC 9-bus system Percentage of unstable dynamies training time for different methods based on 40 trials.
Figure 5: IEEE 57-bus system Percentage of unstable dynamics at training time for different methods based on 40 trials.
Models
Metrics
Flow Vio.
Boundary Vio. x10
Optimality gap" steady-state) %
Fw
No
Stability Vio.
x10-3
DE-OP (ours)
0.00
9.15 0.442
0.25 - 0.172
0.22 = 0.02 0.17 = 0.02 0.17 + 0.01 0.16 + 0.01
MSE
23.30 0.206
12.65 2.281
6.44 1.434
LD
23.10 + 0.219
6.23 0.125
0.00
DC3
Ø
28.60 + 0.232
0.00
0.00
Table 1: Average and standard deviation of constraint violations and (steady-state) optimality gap on the IEEE 57-bus system for different approaches based on 40 independent runs.
(Fioretto et al., 2020). This assessment benchmarks our proposed method, DE-OP, against three leading proxy optimizer methods for AC-OPF, which operate under "steady-state" assumption, and thus cannot cope with constraints (Tb) and (Tc) of the DE-constrained problem. These meth-
ods are LD (Fioretto et al. 2020), DC3 (Donti al. 2020) and MSE Zamzam & Baker 2020
introduced in details in Appendix C.I
Furthermore, discretizing the DE system through methods like direct collocation (Betts) 2010), or iteratively optimizing over the time horizon adopting Model Predictive Control techniques, becomes highly impractical for real-time applications due to the high number of variables and non- linear system dynamics associated with each generator in the system. In contrast, all methods used for comparison (including our DE-OP) produce estimates of the optimal decision variables within milliseconds, as shown in Appendix, Table 0 Additionally, we note that only fast inference times are of interest in the area of proxy optimizers, as once trained, these methods can be applied to various related but distinct problem instances. Crucially, the generator dynamics separate neural-DE models, their computation is fully parallelized and suggests potential for DE-OP in large-scale networks, where proxy optimizers have shown promising results (Mak et al. 2023).
captured by
For both the benchmark systems, DE-OP and each proxy optimizer model are trained on a dataset D = {(C,, 10,0000 where S, representing load demand and u, the corresponding optimal, steady-state decision. The jth load of the i-th sample Ç! is generated by applying a uniform ran- dom perturbation of +200 the corresponding nominal load. The (steady-state) AC-OPF models are implemented in Julia and solved using IPOPT (Wächter & Biegler 2006). The dataset uses an 80/10/10 split. By leveraging the knowledge of the decision variables' bounds (see Appendix, Model Constraints (ITb)-[1lc) each neural-ODE model Na is trained to learn the corresponding generator dynamics on a dataset near-optimal decisions II, as described in Section 4.2 We refer the reader to Appendix B.3 for further details on the neural-ODE models training.
Results. Figures 4 and 5 show the percentage of estimated decisions violating the stability con- straints during the first 50 epochs of training, across all methods and test cases. On the WSCC 9-bus system (Figure 4 DE-OP learns rapidly to meet the dynamic constraints, which violations approaches zero level after epoch 10 training, whereas, all the baseline methods lacking dynamic modeling, consistently produce unstable dynamics. Notably. all the baseline methods tested, e.g., DC3, LDD and MSE, systematically fail to satisfy stability requirements. contrast, by integrating

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
generator dynamics within its training model, DE-OP begins to satisfy these requirements early in training, as depicted in both figures (blue curves). DE-OP shows a rapid adjustment on both systems within the first few epochs, and bringing the violations to zero. In contrast, all baseline meth- ods continue to exhibit 4% to 8% unstable dynamics throughout the training, even for a much higher number of training epochs. As we will show later, these will reflect also in large stability constraints violations, when evaluated on the test set.
Table displays the test-set results for DE-OP and the baseline methods on the IEEE 57-bus system. For a detailed discussion on the results of each method on the WSCC-9 bus system, please see Appendix D and T These tables reports the following metries:
Static and Stability Constraint Violations: These are quantified for each test instance. The j- th static equality and the k-th inequality violation are calculated as _ Ei=1
Post [ (t)) and
Pius
1. Eest Piex max(O, (úi, ÿ (t))) respectively, where Reest is the test-set size. Detailed descriptions
Ruga i=
of the problem constraints can be found in Appendices B.I and B.3
Optimality gap (at steady- statt):: This metric is defined [(u (ya (TT))TT)()))))) D(T()))())) x 100. It (C).r (T))
measures the gap incurred by the predictions ú, (() against the decisions un which are computed under the assumption that the generators are in a steady-state condition. This assumption is crucial for evaluating how closely each solution approximates the AC-OPF optimal results, though does not necessarily reflect the results relative to the ttbilityy-onsttrinee AC-OPF problem, main focus, but which is highly intractable. Given the non-linearity of both the dynamics and optimization in the stability-constrained AC-OPF, computing exact optimal decisions u* with traditional methods is not feasible. Consequently, while our method may show slightly higher steady-state optimality gaps, these should not be interpreted in the context of the dynamic problem.
Firstly, note that all methods report comparable static constraint violations and steady-state opti- mality gaps, with errors within the 10-3 to 10-4 range. Although DE-OP exhibits slightly higher steady-state optimality gaps, approximately 0.05% higher than the best performing baseline, it's im- portant to recall that this metric does not reflect the sability-constraiiee but rather that of the problem addressed by the baselines, placing DE-OP at a seeming disadvantage. The higher objective costs observed with DE-OP is intuitively attributed to restricted feasible space resulting from the integration of generator stability constraints within the AC OPF problem.
AC-OPF optimality gap,
Crucially, all baseline methods systematically fail to meet the stability requirements, often by mar- gins exceeding those observed during training. This illustrates typical scenario where predic- tion errors on decisions parametrizing system dynamics have cascading effects on the associated constraint violations. In stark contrast, DE-OP achieves full compliance with stability constraints, reporting zero violations in each instance analyzed.
These findings are important. They highlight the critical role of dynamic requirements in AC-OPF problems for achieving accurate and stable solutions. The results underscore DE-OP's effectiveness in adjusting potentially unstable set points, as further detailed in Appendix [D.2] and demonstrates DE-OP's effectiveness in ensuring system stability compared to traditional methods that focus on optimality under steady-state assumptions.
6 CONCLUSION
This work was motivated by the efficiency requirements associated with solving differential equa- tions (DE))-onstrained optimization problems. It introduced a novel learningbbased framework, DE-OP, which incorporate differential equation constraints into optimization tasks for near real- time application. The approach uses dual-network architecture, with one approximating the con- trol strategies, focusing on steady-state constraints, and another solving the associated DEs. This architecture exploits a primal-dual method to ensure that both the dynamies dictated by the DEs and the optimization objectives are concurrently learned and respected. This integration allows for end-to-end differentiation enabling efficient gradient-based optimization, and, for the first time to our knowledge, solving DE-constrained optimization problems in near real-time. Empirical eval- uations across financial modeling and energy optimization tasks, illustrated DE-OP's capability to adeptly address these complex challenges. The results demonstrate not only the effectiveness of our approach but also its broad potential applicability across various scientific and engineering domains where system dynamics are crucial optimization or control processes.
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partially supported by NSF grants EPCN--244231 and NSF CAREER-2145706. The view and conclusions are those of the authors only.
REFERENCES
Sogol Babacinejadsaroookkeee, Adam Birchfield, Richard D. Christie, Carleton Coffrin, Christopher DeMarco, Ruisheng Diao, Michael Ferris, Stephane Fliscounakis, Scott Greene, Renke Huang, Cedrie Josz, Roman Korab, Bernard Lesieutre, Jean Maeght, Terrence W. K. Mak, Daniel K. Molzahn, Thomas J. Overbye, Patrick Panciatici, Byungkwon Park, Jonathan Snodgrass, Ahmad Tbailch. Pascal Van Hentenryek, and Ray Zimmerman. The power grid library for benchmarking ac optimal power flow algorithms, 2021.
John T Betts. Practical methods for optimal control and estimation using nonlinear programming. SIAM, 2010.
John Betts and Stephen L. Camphell. Discretize then optimize. Mathematics for industry: chal- lenges and frontiers, pp. 140-157, 2005.
Wojciech Blajer and Krzysztof Kołodziejezyk. A geometrie approach to solving problems of control constraints: theory and a dae framework. Multibody System Dynamics, 11(4):333364, 2004.
Stephen Boyd, Neal Parikh, Eric Chu, Borja Peleato, and Jonathan Eckstein. Distributed optimiza- tion and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 3(12:1-122, 2011.
Marek Capiñski and Ekkehard Kopp. The Black-Schhles Model. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Ricky T. Q. Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural ordinary dif- ferential equations. In Proceedings the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS' 18, pp. 6572-6583, Curran Associates Inc., 2018.
Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. Cvxpy: A python-embedded modeling language for convex 2016.
optimization. The Journal of Machine Learning Research,
Priya Donti, David Rolnick, and Zico Kolter. Dc3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints. In ICLR, 2020.
Graeme Fairweather and Daniel Meade. A survey of spline collocation methods for the numerical solution of differential equations. Mathematics for large scale computing, pp. 297-341. CRC
Press, 2020.
Ferdinando Fioretto, Pascal Van Hentenryck, Terrence WK Mak, Cuong Tran, Federico Baldo, and Michele Lombardi. Lagrangian duality for constrained deep learning. In Joint European Con- ference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery Databases, pp. 118-135. Springer, 2020.
Matthias Gerdts. Direct shooting method for the numerical solution of higher-index dae optimal control problems. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 117:267-294, 2003.
Nikos Hatziargyriou, Jovica Milanovic, Claudia Rahmann, Venkataramana Ajjarapu. Claudio Canizares, Istvan Erlich, David Hill, Ian Hiskens, Innocent Kamwa, Bikash Pal, Pouyan Pourbeik, Juan Sanchez-Gasca Aleksandar Stankovic, Thierry Van Cutsem, Vijay Vittal, and Costas Vour- nas. Definition and classification of power system stability revisited & extended. IEEE Trans- actions on Power Systems, 36(4):3271-3281, 2021. doi: 10.1 3077740
Magnus R. Hestenes. Multiplier and gradient methods. Journal of Optimization Theory and Appli- cations, 4:303-320, 1969.
Liangjian Hu, Xiaoyue Li. and Xuerong Mao. Convergence rate and stability of the truncated euler- maruyama method for stochastic differential equations. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematies, 337:274-289, 2018.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Patrick Kidger. On neural differential equations, 2022.
Patrick Kidger, James Foster, Xuechen Li, Harald Oberhauser, and Terry Lyons Neural sdes as infmitt-diimensional gans, 2021. URL htwph:ttss/saa.c httpaaxivivvo......... abss////////// abs http/bbb/20000 22002 .06657
Peter E. Kloeden and Eekhard Platen. Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations. Springer, 2023. ISBN 178-3-6622-12616-3 doi: 10.10077978-3-660 1-6-1-66--..
James Kotary, Ferdinando Fioretto, Pascal Van Hentenryck, and Bryan Wilder. End-to-end con- strained optimization learning: A survey. Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Con- ference Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pp. 4475 4482, 2021. doi: (0.24963/jjeii.20221666
URL https:://// woo.iooog//// 24..0..2993222 20t1//12001610
James Kotary, Vincenzo Vito, Jacob Cristopher, Pascal Van Hentenryck, and Ferdinando Fioretto. Learning joint models of prediction and optimization, 2024. URL https://azxiv.
abs/2409. 04898
Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, An- drew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces, 2024.
08480
Peijic Li, Junjian Qi, Jianhui Wang, Hua Wei, Xiaoqing Bai, and Feng Qiu. An SQP Method Com- bined with Gradient Sampling for Small-Signal Stability Constrained OPF. JEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 32, 07 2016. doi: 10. N0.1109//WWRS.2016.25000
Terrence W. K. Mak, Minas Chatzos, Mathieu Tanneau, and Pascal Van Hentenryck. Learning regionally decentralized optimal power flows with admm, 2023. URL https://arxiv..
arg/abs/2200 03787
David Q Mayne. James B Rawlings, CV Rao, and PO Scokaert. Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 36(6):789-814 2000.
George S. Misyris, Andreas Venzke, and Spyros Chatzivasileiadis. Physics-infommet neural net-
works for power systems. 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), pp-
1-5, 2019.
Nasdaq. Nasdaq end of day stock prices. https::/daat naddaq..om/dddtaaaae.. EOD/ htt///dumeetaiion 2022. Accessed: 2023-08-15.
Seonho Park and Pascal Van Hentenryck. Self-supervised primal-dual learning for constrained op- timization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pp- 4052-4060, 2023.
M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learn- ing framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686-707, Feb 2019. doi: 10. 10.10///j..ep.2011 10.045.
Mark Rubinstein. Markowitz's" portfolio selection": A fifty-year retrospective. The Journal of finance, 17431-0041 2002.
Peter Rudzis. Brownian motion, 2017.
Rajiv Sambharya, Georgina Hall, Brandon Amos, and Bartolomeo Stellato. End-to-end learning to warm-start for real-time quadratic optimization, 2022.
Peter W. Sauer and M. A. Pai. Power System Dynamics and Stability. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJJ., 1998.
Andreas Wächter and Lorenz T. Biegler. On the implementation of an interior-point filter linc-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Mathematical Programming, 106:25-57, 2006. URL httl/httts::/ppp. semant semant wow.choo......oooooooooossaaa :t
Sifan Wang, Yujun Teng, and Paris Perdikaris. Understanding and mitigating gradient pathologiess in physics-informed neural networks, 2020. URL httpts///aa/iiii wwtp://wwwwwx.rox//xxooo/ 04.36
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Yong Yu, Xiaosheng Si, Changhua Hu, and Jianxun Zhang. A review of recurrent neural networks: Lstm cells and network architectures. Neural computation, 31(7):1235-122) 1270, 2019.
Ahmed Zamzam and Kyri Baker. Learning optimal solutions for extremely fast AC optimal power flow. In IEEE SmariGridComm, Dec. 2020.
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
A STOCHASTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION
This section extends the problem description ① presented Section R of the main paper to a stochastic setting. In presence of stochastic dynamies, the optimization problem constrained by differential equations becomes
Minimize E ((u, + [" o(u, v(1,
(10a)
s.t. dy(t) v(t, G(u,)t))
(10b)
000 = I(u)
(10c)
guu (()) 0
(10d)
h(u, y(t)) =.
(10c)
The SDE constrained optimization problem (T)) involves determining the optimal decision variables
= (uI,...; ; Un) to stochastic dynamics (10a) and initial conditions dictated by (10b). Each state variable (,(() is governed by stochastic differential equation (ty = (y u, t)dt + G,(y(t), u, ())W.(t). where F; represents the deterministic part of the dynamics, and G, captures the stochastic compo- ment, where (t) is a Wiener process. The set of all such equations is described by and G, as defined by (TOb). The initial condition for the state variables is set by constraints (Tcc), where (0) I (u) defines the starting state based on the control variables u. Constraints (10d) and (10ch enforce inequality and equality constraints, respectively, on the state and control variables, ensuring that the system behaves within specified bounds throughout the decision process.
a system where the state variables y)() = (y) (t),... ..... Vm (4)) evolve according
minimize the expected value of a combination of the running cost Φ u. tt),, which varies with the state and decision variables over time, and the terminal cost L(u. (T)), which depends on the final state (I') and the decision variables u. The optimization is performed over time horizon T, which defines the period during which the decision-making process occurs.
The objective [Taa)
B STABILITY CONSTRAINED AC-OPTIMAL POWER FLOW
This section describes the stability constrained AC-Optimal Power Flow problem; first introduces the AC- AC-Optimal Power Flow problem and the synchronous generator dynamics, to eventually inte- grate these two components form the stability constrained AC-Optimal Power Flow problem.
B. AC-OPTIMAL POWER FLOW PROBLEM
The AC-Optimal Power Flow (OPF) problem determines the most cost-effective generator dispatch that satisfies demand within a power network subject to various physical and engineering power systems constraints. Typically, the OPF problem involves capturing a snapshot of the power network parameters and determine the bus voltages and generator set-points based on that fixed state. A power network
be represented as graph (N,C) L) with the node set A consisting of buses, and the edge set L. comprises lines. The set L is defined as a collection of directed arcs, with L indicating the ares in L but in the opposite direction. generators in the system. The power generation and demand at bus E N are represented by complex variables ST Pf + jq and S p + j9 respectively. The power flow across line ij is denoted by Sij. and 0, symbolizes the phase angles at bus E N.
C W represents the set of all synchronous
The AC power flow equations use complex numbers for current I, voltage V, admittance Y, and power S, interconnected through various constraints. Kirchhoff's s Current Law (KCL) is represented by π 1 = E(ig)ecuc" Tiy. Ohm's Law by T (V; - V,). and AC power flow denoted as S., V.d., These principles form the AC Power Flow equations, described by (Tif and (Il
which formulation is described by Model [ The goal is minimize function (T representing dispatch costs for each generator. Constraints (Tbb)- (Tc) represents voltage operational limits to bound voltage magnitudes and phase angle differences, while [Te) set boundaries for gen- erator output and line flow. Constraint (Ihh) sets the reference phase angle. Finally, constraints
TIh and (gg enforce KCL. and Ohm's Law, respectively. The classical, steady-state problem,
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Model 1 The AC Optimal Power Flow Problem (AC-OPF)
Parameters
<= (5"))
decision variables:
(S; Vi) ViEN, SG V(Lj)
Minimize
Σ
c22 (R(()) +c.R(S))
(la
L.
2a S |V/ S U/ ViEN
(11b)
03 & ((KV)) s o v(i,)) E
(1lc)
ST5 5 S S ViEN
(11d)
|8, S 43 v(i,) EL
(11c)
S - 5 = =E Sy ViEN
(11f)
S, Vijlv 2 - Vi v(i,))
(11g)
Our =0 0
(1
described by Model | does not incorporate systems dynamics capturing the behavior of the syn- chronous generators, and as such, does not guarantee stable operations for power system. This paper extends this problem by introducing the Stabilit-Consttranct AC-Optimal Power Flow Prob- lem, which integrates the generator dynamics and related stability constraints within the AC-OPF problem
B.2 GENERATOR DYNAMICS
The generator dynamics are modeled using the "Classical machine model" (12). which is typically adopted describe the dynamic behavior of synchronous generators (Sauer & Pai 1998)
d (t) dt (t)
(s(w Wg) Ea
Pg. (P% MW
D (w) w.)
R X
(t) 0g))
(12)
where (t) and (1) represents the rotor angle and angular speed over time / of generator E G. w, the synchronous angular frequency, M the machine's inertia constant, D the damping coef- ficient, Pa the mechanical power, X the transient reactance and EY electromotive force. The initial value of the rotor angle og. and electromotive force E for each generator G are derived from the active and reactive power equations, assuming the generator dynamical system 12) being in steady state condition at time instant = 0, d dt (t) w (1) = [0 0j
E % sin (6g 0g)
D9 O.
(13)
X
E8
v cos
cos(
6
0g)
2
6g 0.
(14)
X
Following the same assumptions, the initial rotor angular speed is
wi Wa.
(15)
Stability limit To guarantee stability of synchronous generator g E G, the rotor angle 8 (* is required to remain below an instability threshold zmax as defined by SIngle Machine Equivalent (SIME) model:
(t < gmax
Vt 2 0.
(17)
Unstable conditions arise when violating the inequality constraint 17 which is the principal bind- ing constraint that necessitates re-dispatching.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Model 2 The Stability Constrained AC-OPF Problem
Parameters:
< <= (5")
decision variables: u = (Sr V.) ViEN, Si v(i.)) E &
State variables: y(t (8), (()) Vgg E
Minimize
(P(S))) + (. Cue
(16a)
s. t.
116
11h
(16b)
(t)
We (w (t) w.) 8g Eg
(16c)
dt
du (t)
1
(p d (w) - w.))
dt
m
2 (
sin (1) 0g) Vg E g
(16d)
2 m9
(0)
sin (0) - 0g) p = 0 4g Eg
(16c)
25 (0)VV cos 8 (0) - 8g) - IV. 2
9 0 Vg E
(16f)
x
(0) wa 4g g
(16g)
8 (t) < zmn Vg
(16h)
(16i)
B.3 STABILITY-CONSTRANNE OC-OPTIMAL POWER FLOW PROBLEM
together with the associ- ated stability constraints are thus integrated within the steady-stat AC-OPF Problem ! giving rise to the Kabillty-Constraale parameters Ç Sd represent customer demand, while decision variables æ erator settings and bus voltages; the state variables (t) = (1) w (1)) Vg E g represent the rotor angle and angular speed of the generators.
The generator dynamics and its initial conditions equations 13 15
AC-OPF problem. which is detailed in Model 2 In this problem,
(S V) are the gen-
Training setting of Neural Ordinary Differential Equation Models As the generator dynamics are described by a system of ODEs, neural-ODE (Chen et al. 2018) models, one for each syn- chronous generator g E G, are used to capture their dynamics. Each neural-DE model Ný is trained in a supervised fashion, as described in Section 4.2] to obtain dynamic predictors that are capable of providing accurate estimate of the state variables (t()) across a family of instances of the gen- erator model [12. Specifically, for each generator E G. the datasets D used for training the generator dynamic predictor No consists of pairs (I,, y: (t)) DD, where æ; (6% w/ [V f8)) the input of the neural-ODa model, and y (t) (6) w (t), (V) (t) the corresponding solution of (12) with initial conditions y. using Dopri5, a numerical algorithm implementing an adaptive Runge- Kutta method. For each in- put æ. the OPF decision variables [V'], f6,, are sampled from a uniform distribution 4(a, b). where and b are given by the corresponding operational limits specified by Constraints - [1c Note that each these variables influences the initial condition of the state variables (09(0), w (0)) via Equation (13 as well as the governing equations of the generator. As IV'l 1. O' extend the ac-
[xx,,, represented by (I6c)- (Gg)) and computed
tual generator state variables (t), w (f)), we are implicitly augmenting the generator model with
these two additional state variables that have no dynamics (e.g. <VVi(() 0, d0,(') 0) and initial condition (0) = Vi'. (0) 6% This trick allows us to explicitly inform the neural ODE model of the role played by the voltage magnitude VV, and angle 6, on the dynamics of each gen- erator. The generator characteristics parameters of model (12). such as the damping coefficient D9, inertia constant M9, and mechanical power Pg are adopted from Li et al. (2016). Each dataset DE contains approximately 50% of unstable trajectories and 50% of stable trajectories, generated as described in Section 4.2 At training time, given pair (xx, y (t) ~ D9, the target is constructed as
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
(t) = (0), y (A .................... at the beginning of the training. and gradually increases up to 1000. This trick allows to avoid local minima during training (Kidger 2022).
................................ y (nA,), with A, 0.001 and the number of points n, is set to 200
At test time, set 1000.
B.4 DYNAMIC PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION
DE-OP uses a neural-SDE (Kidger et al., 2021) model Ng to capture the asset price dynamics ytt). The neural-SDE model consists of 2 separate neural network, NV. = (N% .N7) where Ny aims to capture the deterministic component of (9d). (x(())dtt and Nº the stochastic com- ponent o.C(t)dW.(t) N₁ is a simple linear layer, while No is a 2-layer ReLU neural network. Given the initial asset price vector y(0) Ç, the neural-SDE model N₂ generates an estimate (() = (O)) of the asset prices trend, from which the final asset price (T)) is obtained. The LSTM and the Feed Forward model used to estimate the final asset price (T') as the dynamic component of the corresponding baseline method are both a 2-layer ReLU neural network. The final time instant T 28, 800 seconds which corresponds to hours. Given initial condition y² (0) Ç², the asset price trend y (t) is obtained by Ito numerical integration of (dj.. The neural-SDE: model is trained on a dataset {(C), y (1)) the LSTM model trained on dataset {(y (T)))
where y (1) = y (0), y (Ar).... y' (A,K) is a time series, A, = 100 seconds and 4,K = T-1. The Feed Forward network is trained dataset ((y' (0), y (T)))
C ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
C.I PROXY OPTIMIZER METHODS
This subsection describes in brief the proxy optimizer methods adopted in the experiments to esti- mate the optimal decision variables u", within the operational setting described by (I) or (10). Each description below assumes a DNN model Fu parameterized by w, which acts on problem parame- ters Ç to produce estimate of the decision variables ú (C), that à u² (C). To notation, the dependency from problem parameters Ç is omitted.
Lagrangian Dual Learning (LD). Fioretto al. (0220 constructs the following modified La- grangian as a loss function:
CLD v())
ú u² (2)ll + X (g v(1)) + h( y(t)-
At each iteration of LD training, the model F., is trained to minimize balance of constraint vi- olations and proximity to the precomputed target optima (C). Updates to the multiplier vectors À and se calculated based on the average constraint violations incurred by the predictions ú, mimicking a dual ascent method (Boyd et al. 2011).
Deep Constraint Completion and Correction (DC3). Donti al. (020)) uses the loss function CDS (ú, (()) [ (()) A|| (g(û (())), 11 plilii (())
which relies completion-corrrecioo technique enforce constraint satisfaction, while maximiz- ing the empirical objective J in self-supervised training.
Self-Supervised Primal-Dual Learning (PDL). mented Lagrangian loss function
Park Van Hentenryck (003) uses an aug-
CDL (L
(ū, (()) ((ū,y(1)) XT (() + nT n(a, (())+
Σ (ū (()))+ Σ (1 (()))
which consists of a primal network approximate the decision variables, and dual network to learn the Lagrangian multipliers update. The method is self-super,ised, requiring no precomputation of target solutions for training.
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
MSE.
Zamzam & Baker (2020) uses the loss function:
C út, u²) = || 2 12
which minimizes the MSE between the predicted solution é and the corresponding precomputed solution u².
C.2 STABILITY CONSTRAINED AC-OPTIMAL POWER FLOW EXPERIMENT
Hyperparameters of the neural-ODE. models Each neural- -DE model is a fully connected feed- forward ReLU neural network with hidden layers, each with 200 units. Each model is trained using Adam optimizer, with default learning rate 1) 10-3 and default hyperparameters.
Hyperparameters of the DE-OP's optimization model and the proxy optimizer methods The DE-OP optimization component F. and each baseline proxy optimizer model trained with Adam optimizer and default learning rate v) 10-$ Each proxy optimizer model is fully connected FeedFoward ReLU neural network with 5 hidden layers, each with 200 units. The DE-OP's op- timization model Fu and Lagrangian Dual proxy model are trained with a Lagrangian step size 10-1, while the Lagrangian multipliers AV and Xg are updated each epoch. DC3's proxy optimizer model is trained with the same set of hyperparameters for OPF, as reported in the original paper.
C.3 DYNAMIC PORTFOLIO EXPERIMENT
Hyperparameters of the asset prices predictor models The stochastic component of the neural- SDE, the LSTM and Feed Forward model are each 2-layers ReLU networks, each with 100 units. The neural-SDE, LSTM and Feed Forward models are all trained using Adam optimizer, with default learning rate 10-3 and hyperparameters.
Hyperparameters of the DE-OP's optimization model and the proxy optimizer methods The DE-OP optimization component F., and each baseline proxy optimizer model is trained with Adam optimizer and default learning rate r) = 10-3 Each proxy optimizer model is fully connected Feed Foward ReLU neural network with hidden layers, each with 50 units. The DE-OP's optimization model F., and Lagrangian Dual proxy model are trained with a Lagrangian step size p = 10-1, while the Lagrangian multipliers ' and Ag are updated each 10 epoch. PDL's and DC3's proxy optimizer model uses the same hyperparameters for the Convex Quadratic task, as reported in the respective original paper.
D ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: STABILITY CONSTRAINED AC OPTIMAL POWER F1.WW
This section reports additional experimental results DE-OP model and the baseline methods on the WSCC 9-bus system and the IEEE 57-bus system. Specifically, report:
The inference time (measured in seconds) of neural-ODE which we compare to the com- putational time of a traditional numerical ODE solver and the precision of state variables' estimate (t) (measured the percentage e error) of NODEs and PINNs Raissi et al. (2019), a different learning-based approach for learning the system dynamics.
The (steady-state) decision error (MSE) of the OPF variables of DE-OP and each proxy optimizer method, incurred by the respective approximation ú, computed assuming that the generators are in steady-state.
The (steady-state) optimality gaps incurred by DE-OP and the baselines proxy optimizers predictions' û, and measured as [[(ue [L(ux" (T)) function (cquation 16a).
100, where L is objective
[[u (C.. (C))
The inference time (measured seconds) DE-OP and each proxy optimizer model to generate ú.
18

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 2: Average and standard deviation of computational times for numerical solvers vs. neural- ODE inference time by method
Method
Numerical Solver
neural-ODE
Dopri5 (default)
0.135 + 0.015 (sec)
0.008 + 0 (sec)
Bosh3
0.446 0.039 (sec)
0.017 + (sec)
800
6(1)
w(()
Numarical sabver comprtational time
8xooelt]
600
(
F/2
4-
400
0-
0.0
0.2
114
200
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Time (6)
Figure 6: True and ncural-ODE (NODE) solutions of the generator state variables in unstable con- ditions.
6(3)
1.0
w(t) éxons(t)
0.8
(woodtt)
0.6
6ppax' apoxc(l)
0.4
0.2
0.2
2
Time (8)
Figure 7: True, neural-ODE (NODE) and PINN estimate of the generator state variables in stable
conditions.
D.1 LEARNING THE GENERATOR DYNAMICS
Runtime comparison between neural-ODEs and a traditional ODE solver. Here the goal is to evaluate the neural-ODE' inference time to produce the generators' state variables estimates and to compare it with the computational time of a traditional ODE solver. Given the synchronous gener- ator model described by 12 a numerical ODE solver could be adopted to determine the evolution in time of the state variables 5 (t) and w (t). However, in case of unstable conditions, the system response can as rapid as, or even exceed, the time required for computing the ODE solution with numerical solver. This situation is depicted in Figure 6 where unstable conditions arise before neural ODE model N is capable of detecting unstable conditions before the system transitions into stable state, while also providing a good approximation of the solution. This speed advantage arises
numerical solution to the system of differential equations 12 is computed. Conversely,
19

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 3: Average (steady-state) decision errors for the WSCC 9-bus system across different ap- proaches based on 40 trials.
Models
MSE (Mean Squared Error) x x10
Fw
No
p"
q"
V
DE-OP (ours)
2.45 + 0.253
3.26 + 0.127
2.55 0.354
3.82 1882:0000 0.924
MSE
0
1.90 = 0.272
1.63 = 0.580
0.32 - 0.153
0.43
LD
0
1.77
+ 0.163
1.72 1: 0.284
0.16 4: 0.099
0.55 0.051
DC3
0
1.86 = 0.217
1.65 = 0.262
0.26 0.195
0.48 0.343
Table 4: Average (steady-state) decision errors for the IEEE 57-bus system across different ap- proaches based 40 trials.
Models
MSE (Mean Squared Error) x10-3
Fw
No
p"
q"
V
DE-OP (ours)
5.05 + 0.175
7.42 + 1.482
2.99
0.214
4.43 +: 0.673
0.673
MSE
0
3.48
+ 0.321
3.86 1.512
0.77
0.148
1.42 0.237
LD
0
3.97
+ 0.279
2.427
0.34 0.012
0.95 + 0.054
DC3
0
3.31 = 0.579
0.51 0.078
0.64 0.081
Table 5: Average and standard deviation of constraint violations and (steady- optimality gap on the WSCC 9-bus system for different approaches based on 40 independent runs.
Models
Metries
Flow Vio.
Boundary Vio.
Optimality Gap (at stcady-state)
F.
Ng
Stability Vio.
x10-3
x x10-1
DE-OP (ours)
0.00
8.32 + 0.596
0.41 0.243 9.72 + 4.930
0.13 + 0.02
MSE
0
2.26 1 0.189
10.45 1 2.183
0.13 + 0.02
LD
0
2.13 1 0.175
7.19 +: 0.425
0.00
0.11 1: 0.01
DC3
0
2.45 + 0.205
0.00
0.00
0.11 + 0.01
from the neural-ODE. vector field approximation of 12 which enables quicker computation of the reports the average and standard deviation of computational time, for numerical solvers, and inference time, for neural-ODEs, given average, about 20 times faster than
forward pass of numerical ODE solver (Kidger 2022 Table Sable@repore
2 different numerical algorithms. Neural-ODE models numerical solver which uses the dynamic equations of (22). This aspect makes neural-ODE models natural candidates as dynamic predictors for the generator model in real-time applications.
Comparison between neural-ODEs and PINNs. Here the goal is to asses the precision of the neural-ODEs' estimate of the generator state variables and to compare them with PINNs Misyris et al. (001). PINNs are ML-based models that incorporates known physical laws into the learning process. Instead of relying solely on data, PINNs use physics- based constraints to guide the train- ing, ensuring that the model's 'ss predictions are consistent with the underlying scientific principles. Figure 7 shows the neural-ODE and PINNs' state variables estimates in case of stable conditions. While a neural-ODEs model produces highly accurate state variables' predictions, a PINN model trained on the same dataset D but affected by a generalization bias, is incapable of capturing the generator dynamics across different instances of the generator model (12) and produces poor state variables estimates. Specifically, the percentage error between the numerical ODE solver solu- tions S(t),w(t) and the neural-ODo (NODE) predictions δNODE (t). wNODE(t) is 5.17%, while for the PINN predictions SPINN()). (t), (t)NN(t) (t) is significantly higher at 69.45%.
20

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
D.2 CONSTRAINT VIOLATIONS AND (STEADY-STATE) DECISION ERRORS
Tables 3 Band report the (steady-state) decision error (MSE) at test time of DE-OP and the baseline PO methods on the WSCC 9-bus and IEEE 57-bus system, respectively. Specifically, the tables re- ports the MSE of estimated solutions with respect to the ground-truth solutions, with the assumption that the synchronous generators are in steady-state. The same considerations reported in Section 5.2 regarding the stcady-state optimality gaps apply also for the following discussion. In other words, the ground truth variables used to compute the decision errosr, are obtained from solving the steady- state ACOPF problem, and as such, the decision errors here reported do not necessarily reflect that AC OPF problem. Nonetheless, this metric provides valuable insights on the impact of the decision variables the dynamics requirements of Problem 2
of each method for solving the Stability-Constrrt
Firstly, note that, for each test case, all the methods achieve similar decision error. Despite that, as shown in Table of the main paper and Table and Figures (4 5 of the main paper. DE-OP is the only method that satisfy exactly the dynamic requirements [7). while all the baseline methods systematically violate the stability constraint. These results suggest that DE-OP modifies potentially unstable set points, at cost of only slightly higher MSE than the baseline approaches. Note in particular the MSE error of the OPF variables |V] and 0; these variables directly affect the generator dynamics in 12 and thus their modification is necessary to satisfy the stability constraint. This trade-off is crucial for practical applications, where the dynamic requirements must be addressed. Table [5] shows the violation of the static (flow and boundaries), along with the optimality gap with the assumption that the generators are in steady-state, for each method on the WSCC-9 bus system. Similarly to the IEEE 57 test-case discussed in Section 5.2 DC3 the only method which achieves steady-state constraint satisfactions. All methods except DC3 generate comparable violations of the flow balance constraints, which is the most difficult constraint to satisfy due to its non-linear nature defined by Constraint (TT)) and Tgg. LD satisfy the boundary constraint by projecting its output á within the feasible set defined by Constraints (1Ib)-([c)). Empirically, we found that removing this projection operation within the DE-OP model Fu.. some cases allows to satisfy the dynamic requirements. We did not thoroughly investigate this result, but our intuition is that in some cases the decision variables [V], involved in the stability analysis must assume values close to their boundaries to satisfy stability constraints. This comes at a cost of minimal boundary constraint vio- lations from DE-OP. MSE, lacking of a mechanism to encourage constraint satisfactions, produces solutions violating each constraint function.
D.3 STEADY-STATE OPTIMALITY GAPS
This subsection discusses the sub-optimality of the estimated solution á with respect to the ground truth u², with the assumption that the generators are in steady-state conditions, given parameters Ç and measured in terms of objective value (16a), of DE-OP and each baseline method. The same considerations reported in (.2 the steady-state optimality gaps and how this metric should be interpreted, apply also for the subsequent discussion. Table[]in the main paper and Table S report the optimality gaps on the WSCC-9 and IEEE-57 bus system, respectively. The tables report that all the methods achieve comparable gaps on each test case. This is intuitive, since the optimality gap depends solely on the power generated p" (see objective function (16a)). and all methods produce similar p" prediction error, as displayed in Tables 3 and 4 For the WSCC bus system, DE-OP produces average optimality gap of O. 13% while preserving system stability, that are comparable with the best optimality gap LD with 0.11 and DC3 with 0. which often violates stability constraints.
D.4 INFERENCE TIME
Finally, we evaluate the average inference time of DE-OP and each baseline proxy optimizer method. Table the inference time of each proxy optimizer method on each test case. On average, DE- OP produces near-optimal and stable solutions in (ms) and 9 (ms) for the WSCC-9 bus and IEEE 57- respectively, which is slightly higher but comparable with the MSE and LD approaches, and about 15x faster than the DC3 method. DC3 achieves the highest inference time, due to its correction and completion procedure, which requires solving a nonlinear system of equations and the Jacobian matrix computation. While DE-OP can be already used for near real-time applications,
21

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 6: Average and standard deviation of inference times for different OPF learning approaches in the test cases.
Models
WSCC 9-bus
IEEE 57-bus
Fw
No
Inference
Time (sec)
DE-OP (ours)
0.001 = 0.00
0.009 = 0.00
MSE
0.000 + 0.00
0.001 0.00
LD
0
0.000 = 0.00
0.001 = 0.00
DC3
0.025 0.00
0.089 0.00
its efficiency could be improved by computing the state variables in parallel, since each dynamic predictor is independent. This aspect makes DE-OP' inference time independent from the size of number of state variables and dynamical systems, suggesting potential for large-scale and complex systems.
E ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: DYNAMIC PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION
0.6
0.5
Rksoelt)
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (d)
Figure 8: Asset prices (blue), LSTM (red) and neural-SDF asset prices estimates.
E. LEARNING THE ASSET PRICE DYNAMICS
Comparison between neural-SDE and LSTM. Fig. g illustrates the asset price trends given different initial asset prices Ç") with estimates (() provided by both a neural-SDE model and an LSTM model, alongside the true asset prices y (I) computed with a numerical SDE solver imple- menting Euler-Maruyama method (Hu et al. 2018). It is evident that, given different initial asset price < the neural-SDE model produces more accurate predictions than the LSTM model, by ex- plicitly capturing the asset pricing dynamic equations. These accurate predictions lead more informed and higher quality decision making, as discussed in Section 5.1
F.2 OPTIMALITY GAPS
This section report additional results DE-OP and the bascline methods across different proxy optimizer methods and asset price predictors the Dynamic Portfolio Optimization task with 20 and n = 50. Figures / and 10 display the average, percentage optimality gap on the test set, across different methods, for n 20 and n. 50, respectively. In both figures, it is evident that for a given proxy optimizer method (e.g., Lagrangian Dual), by using neural-SDE predictors to capture the asset prices dynamics, DE-OP yields superior decision quality compared to the baseline methods. For n = 20, OE-OP achieves the lowest optimality gaps 12.92% for DC3, 5.23% for
22

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
130
Statiesdyy (DC3)
Opt. gap (36
Opt. mAp (%)
oely (PD6)
No -n SIDE .Ns -LSTM
As -Fordd
As 0
No m0sD Ng -18TM
Ng -Frrndd Ns -
DE-Optimization Proxy
DE- DE-Opiiization Proxy
Figure Average percentage optimality gap with 20 asset prices for each method across different proxy optimizer methods.
Figure 10: Average percentage optimality gap with 50 asset prices for each method across different proxy optimizer methods.
LD, and 13.45% for PDL by capturing the asset prices dynamics via explicit modeling of the asset prices' dynamics. Predicting the final asset price with LSTM leads to optimality gaps of 8.67% for L.D, and 19.00% for PDL for PDI., performing consistently worse than DE-OP, due to lack of explicit dynamic modeling. The Feed Forward model performs significantly worse, leading to significantly higher gaps 121.56% for DC3, 100.45% for LD, and 110.33% for PDL highlighting its limitations capturing the time-dependent nature of the data, similarly to the proxy optimizer methods which ignore the system dynamics, which achieve 103.98% for DC3, 111.63% for LD, and 115.112 115.11% for PDL. Overall, these results follow the trend reported in Figure and discussed in Section [.1 of the main paper, concerning the optimization task with n = 50. Among the proxy optimizer methods considered, Lagrangian Dual consistently outperforms DC3 and PDL, suggesting that precomputed solutions can enhance the accuracy and robustness of optimization proxies. The optimality gaps achieved by each method when
50, increase with respect the optimality gaps achieved by the corresponding method when n = 20, likely due to a higher complexity of the optimization task. These results highlight the importance of accurate dynamic predictions, which in turn enable, in subsequent stage, generating high quality investment allocations.
23


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "RSHqSV51nR", "reviewer": "Reviewer_PcqT", "summary": "In this paper the authors propose a dual learning approach for solving differential equation-based optimization problems, relevant to dynamic optimization and systems control. The authors present a financial and a power-grid case study, showcasing the accuracy and speed of their proposed method. The method includes several novel aspects and its applicability is well-motivated by the authors.", "questions": "- In the Related Works section, the authors do not mention collocation-based or differential algebraic programming (DAE), although these are mentioned later in the results/discussion section. How do these methods compare to proposed approach, why are they relevant?\n- How does \"multiparametric programming\" (which is a field related to MPC, developed to identify \"maps\" of control actions under different parametrizations, for which authors have also previously used surrogate models) compare to proposed approach? \n- Finally, the authors mention that DE-optimization problems involve parametrization of the state variables, and thus traditional MPC is unsuitable. This statement must be made more clear because it is a little misleading. What is traditional MPC and why is it unsuitable? Due to implementation or computational cost concerns?\n- How would the method steps (training for Fw, training for Nθ), using Langrangian approach scale for larger grid systems? Please discuss this in your conclusions. \n- How critical is it to the method to have near-optimal guesses to solve the optimization problem with IPOPT? Would this ever become an issue for larger systems? \n- For both surrogate models trained, what is the trade-off between training sample diversity (covering the entire space) vs. optimality (samples being close to optimal regions) for accuracy and constraint violation of the overall method?", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "- Well-written paper, well organized and well-motivated.\n- The selected case studies are important, challenging and sufficient to show the effectiveness of the proposed approach. \n- Authors have done a lot of interesting and relevant work, presenting many more comparisons and discussion in the Appendices.", "weaknesses": "Related works section: \n- This work is relevant to control applications, which is a really rich area with respect to literature. The Reviewer realizes that it would be impossible to review all of it, but some statements and key relevant areas could be better represented. Several questions on this have been added to the Questions section. \n- The motivation includes stochastic DE constrained optimization, which is not shown in results, rather briefly mentioned in Appendix A. The discussion provided in Appendix A is not sufficient to justify that this could extend to stochastic opt, which comes with more challenges. \n- The authors only solve up to a 57-bus system, which is a benchmark problem in power systems optimization. Real problems are much larger than this. The authors should discuss scalability of proposed method and challenges in each step as number or nodes, variables, constraints increases. \n- The authors use a local optimizer to generate data, ensuring near-optimal solutions are used to warm-start the solver. The sensitivity of the method to this is not discussed.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "20OKhuoibR", "reviewer": "Reviewer_ZAzm", "summary": "The paper proposes a novel method for solving optimization problems constrained by differential equations (DEs). This method combines neural networks with a proxy optimization model, employing a dual-network architecture: one network approximates control strategies, while the other solves the differential equations related to these decisions. Experiments have validated the effectiveness of this method in fields such as financial modeling and energy optimization. Compared to traditional proxy optimization methods, this approach shows higher accuracy when handling high-dimensional dynamic constraints.", "questions": "1. Does the dual-network architecture need to consider synchronization issues during training? When one network changes, can the other network quickly adjust to adapt to the new state?\n2. The authors have not sufficiently addressed the practical challenges of applying their method. Key aspects such as computational resource requirements, scalability to larger systems, and performance in the presence of noisy or incomplete data require comprehensive discussion.\n3. The paper does not specify the numerical solvers used for comparison. In equations (3a) and (3b), where N_\\theta approximates the evolution of state variables, how does the performance of the neural network solver compare to traditional numerical solvers like Runge-Kutta or Euler methods? A comparison focusing on accuracy, efficiency, and convergence is needed for completeness.\n4. The loss function integrates the optimization of state and control variables, but how are the contributions of these two networks balanced?\n5. The proposed network should discuss its numerical stability during the solving process, especially in cases where F is a highly nonlinear or stiff equation. How does the network avoid issues of gradient explosion or vanishing?\n6. The discussion on Neural ODE in the abstract should include a reference to the paper by Chen et al. (2018) titled \"Neural Ordinary Differential Equations,\" presented at NeurIPS, to provide necessary background and support for the proposed method.", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1.\tThe writing is clear and well-structured, making complex concepts accessible.\n2.\tThe methodology is rigorous and well-executed, with robust experiments that provide reliable results.\n3.\tThe authors provide thorough comparisons with existing optimization methods, demonstrating significant performance improvements.", "weaknesses": "1.\tThe authors do not adequately address potential limitations or challenges faced when applying their method in practice.\n2.\tThe absence of diagrams or flowcharts makes complex concepts challenging to follow. Adding a diagram illustrating the dual-network architecture, particularly the interaction between the proxy optimization model F_\\omega  and the solver N_\\theta significantly improves understanding.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "1NSKmcQ0hy", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Gqd7", "summary": "This paper introduces the Differential Equation Optimization Proxy (DE-OP) for solving differential equation (DE)-constrained optimization problems. The major contribution is a proposed primal-dual framework to ensure constraint satisfaction while allowing end-to-end differentiation. Experiments on several real-world background optimization problems show that the DE-OP achieves improvements in solution stability compared with existing static methods.", "questions": "* Is the upper bound on the number of points a typo? It seems should be T rather than \\top\n* It is hard to follow the paragraph \"Optimizing over the distribution of instances\". Why are the parameters \\zeta used as input of the neural network? \n* How is the dataset D acquired for the experiment?\n* Why is DE-OP compared to LSTM models in the experiments? Recurrent neural networks are generally unsuitable for DE-constrained optimization, so the rationale behind this comparison is unclear. Provide a clear justification for including LSTM models in the comparison. If there's a specific reason for this choice, please explain it.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "* The paper is well-structured and presented in a clear academic style. \n* The experiment results demonstrate that the DE-OP can be 25 times faster than existing methods, which is a great improvement. \n* Benchmarks are chosen as some real-world scenarios (AC-Optimal power flow optimization and dynamic portfolio optimization), which are beneficial for actual applications.\n* The constrained optimization with differential equations is quite important for real-world control problems.", "weaknesses": "* Contribution 2 appears to be more of a methodological explanation of DE-OP rather than a clear, original contribution. Clarifying its novelty could help highlight its value within the paper. \n* The description of the challenges addressed by DE-OP could be more specific. Currently, DE-OP mentions a wide range of problems such as NP-hard, high dimensionality, and nonlinearity that are common to many “learning-to-optimize” frameworks. A detailed description of the unique challenges faced by DE-OP would make the problem more specific.\n* The proposed DE-OP is similar to many existing optimal control networks, such as the actor-critic model. Provide more details and comparisons between them or at least discuss the differences between DE-OP with neural networks for solving differential equations. \n* For equation (6), when L^{DE-OP} is minimized, how does DE-OP ensure constraint satisfaction? This is not explained in the main text, and Appendix C.1 only deals with the proxy optimizer approach, leaving this key detail ambiguous.\n* In the experimental setting, baselines focus on “steady-state” aspects, raising questions about whether these baselines can effectively address the problem as formulated in Equation (1). This focus also raises potential fairness concerns in the comparison. Authors could either justify their choice of baselines more thoroughly, or include additional baselines that are more directly comparable to DE-OP in terms of handling dynamic aspects of the problem.\n* The results in Table 1 do not strongly support DE-OP's superiority over baselines, as only stability violations are minimized, while other metrics do not place DE-OP even as the second-best method.  Please provide more context or discussion around these results. For example, you could explain why minimizing stability violations is particularly important in their problem setting or discuss the trade-offs between different performance metrics.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Spotlight)