Adversarially robust learning for security-constrained optimal power flow
Authors: Priya L. Donti
Aayushya Agarwal
Neeraj Vijay Bedmutha
Larry Pileggi
J Zico Kolter
Venue: NeurIPS 2021 Poster (2021)
Keywords: security-constrained optimal power flow
adversarial robustness
implicit layers
bi-level optimization

Abstract: In recent years, the ML community has seen surges of interest in both adversarially robust learning and implicit layers, but connections between these two areas have seldom been explored. In this work, we combine innovations from these areas to tackle the problem of N-k security-constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF). N-k SCOPF is a core problem for the operation of electrical grids, and aims to schedule power generation in a manner that is robust to potentially $k$ simultaneous equipment outages. Inspired by methods in adversarially robust training, we frame N-k SCOPF as a minimax optimization problem -- viewing power generation settings as adjustable parameters and equipment outages as (adversarial) attacks -- and solve this problem via gradient-based techniques. The loss function of this minimax problem involves resolving implicit equations representing grid physics and operational decisions, which we differentiate through via the implicit function theorem. We demonstrate the efficacy of our framework in solving N-3 SCOPF, which has traditionally been considered as prohibitively expensive to solve given that the problem size depends combinatorially on the number of potential outages.

Adversarially Robust Learning for Security-Constrained Optimal Power Flow
Priya L. Donti", Aayushya Agarwal', Neeraj Vijay Bedmutha, Larry Pileggi, J. Zico Kolter
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
(pdonti, aayushya, nbedmuth, pileggi, 2kolter)@andrew, cmu, edu
Abstract
In recent years, the ML community has seen surges of interest in both adversarially robust learning and implicit layers, but connections between these two areas have seldom been explored. In this work, combine innovations from these areas to tackle the problem of N-k security-constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF). problem for the operation of electrical grids, and aims
N-k SCOPF is schedule power generation in a manner that is robust to potentially k simultancous equipment outages. Inspired by methods in adversarially robust training, we frame N-k SCOPF as a minimax optimization problem viewing power generation settings as adjustable parameters and equipment outages as (adversarial) attacks and solve this problem via gradient- based techniques. The loss function of this minimax problem involves resolving implicit equations representing grid physics and operational decisions, which we differentiate through via the implicit function theorem. We demonstrate the efficacy of our framework in solving N-3 SCOPF, which has traditionally been considered as prohibitively expensive to solve given that the problem size depends combinatorially on the number of potential outages.
Introduction
Robust optimization problems pervasive across many applications and domains such as electric power systems, supply chain management, and civil engineering where the goal is to construct some solution that robust under any allowable instantiation of uncertainty M 2. While the aim is generally that these solutions be provably robust, there unfortunately remain many settings where it is either not easy or not possible to construct such solutions. This has often motivated the use of heuristic approaches. For instance, many approaches in adversarially robust deep learning formulate neural network training minimax game over neural network parameters and input perturbations, optimizing this problem via gradient-brrg based techniques that do not yield provable robustness guarantees, but are nonetheless effective practice
In this work, we draw inspiration from adversarially robust training to address the problem of N-k security-constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF). N-k SCOPF a fundamental problem to schedule power generation in a way that is robust to & potential equipment failures (e.g., generator or line outages). Unfortunately, N-k SCOPF is prohibitively expensive solve scale, leading grid operators to use rough approximations in practice. To address this challenge, we frame N-k SCOPF as minimax -effede problem, where the "defender" aims to schedule power generation, and the "attacker" aims to pick adversarial equipment failures. The loss function of this problem requires solving implicit equations representing the physies of the electric grid well additional operational decisions that are made after an attack has occurred. As such, we optimize this problem using gradient-basee techniques, and employ insights from the literature on implicit differentiation and implicit layers to cheaply compute gradients through the loss function.
These authors contributed equally.
35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2021).

---

Our key contributions are:
Formulation for minimax optimization with implicit variables. To streamline the pre- sentation of concepts, we provide generic formulation for gradient-based optimization of minimax problems with implicityy-dcfine' variables. While our main focus in this paper is on N-k SCOPF, we believe this generic formulation may also be of broader interest for minimax settings with physics in the loop, as well as for tri-level optimization settings.
Formulation for gradient- traseent-based optimization of N-k SCOPE. We rewrite N-k SCOPF as continuous minimax optimization problem, and demonstrate how to efficiently compute gradients through relevant implicit components. We also utilize the underlying structure of our optimization solvers further streamline the outer minimization procedure. Importantly, the per-iteration cost of this approach is agnostic to the number of simultaneous outages k, despite the combinatorial blowup in the number of associated "contingency scenarios."
Demonstration on N-1, N-2, and N-3 SCOPE. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method in addressing SCOPF settings that allow for one, two, or three simultaneous outages on a realistic 4622-node power system with over 38 billion potential N-3 outage scenarios. We find that our method incurs 3-4x fewer N-3 feasibility violations than a baseline optimal power flow approach, and requires only 21 minutes to run on a standard laptop.
2 Related work
Adversarial robustness in deep learning. There has been a growing body of work that aims to parameterize neural networks in a manner that is robust to particular perturbations of their inputs, usually by casting neural network training an attacker-defende game ( 4 While there have been several promising approaches for certifiably robust neural network training 75)7), in general, these approaches do not yet scale to large-sized networks and only address a limited of threat models. As a result, there has been a lot of research in this area that aims to train robust neural networks using approximate, gradient- based training methods B J an approach
adopt in the context of SCOPF In addition, key part of this literature has been on constructing strong but theap-to-computt attacks that can strengthen the outcomes of adversarially robust training, e.g., the fast gradient sign method (FGSM) [8] and projected gradient descent (PGD) attacks [9]. In our experiments, we similarly show how a gradient-based adversarial robustness approach can be used identify potential grid vulnerabilities, as an input to secure power system optimization.
Implicit layers. Implicit differentiation techniques within deep learning workflows, largely in the context of implicit layers, i.e., neural network layers that represent implicit functions (1).. These include differentiable optimization layers 133 and physics-based layers 20, 21.
T0 have started be used more widely
among others (22 23 Given the large number of parameters within any given deep network, a key aspect of this work has been in finding efficient ways to actually compute the relevant derivatives, c.g., by strategically ordering multiplicative operations and reusing the results of previous computations. We similarly employ these kinds of strategies when computing implicit derivatives for our SCOPF optimization approach. We also note that some of the work on implicit differentiation in deep learning and related areas has been in service of solving bi-level optimization problems, e.g., for decision-driven forecasting [24. 25) hyperparameter tuning (26-29) or system identification and control [30]. We similarly consider the use of implicit differentiation for multi-level optimization (in particular, tri-level optimization) in the context of SCOPF.
decurity-constraine optimal power flow. In the electric power systems community, there has been a great deal of emphasis on optimizing power grid operations to be secure to sets of outages (contingencies) that may be particularly high risk. For instance, many grid operators in the United States require grids to be operated in a way that is N-1 secure (i.c., secure against any single outage), which has led to a focus in the literature on addressing N-1 SCOPF 31 However, ensuring security against multiple simultaneous failures (i.e., solving N-k SCOPF for k > 1) is becoming
increasingly critical, both as evidenced by recent major blackout events [35 36) and as climate
change drives weather extremes M that may lead to correlated outages 38, That said, due to the
computational complexity addressing N-k SCOPF in the general case, there have been few attempts at developing methods geared towards this setting. In partícular, the computational complexity of N-k SCOPF grows combinatorially with and the size of the system. Some previous attempts to solve N-k SCOPF have employed exhaustive methods [39 Bender's s cuts to reduce the number of

---

max contingencies analyzed 40], and bi-level optimization frameworks 40 41 bi-level optimization to develop systematic attacker-defender approach to address N-3 contingency scenarios, but used a simplified, linear power grid model to attain convergence. We similarly adopt bi-level framework, but solve a realistic non-linear model of the grid by introducing fast gradient calculation methods inspired by the implicit layers literature, which allows us to scale our approach to 4622-node system.
In particular, 41l used
3 Generic problem formulation
Before diving into the details of SCOPF formulation, first provide generic formulation for gradient-based minimax optimization over an implicit loss function, which we will later build upon in the context of SCOPF. In particular, consider the setting of continuous minimax optimization problems over "defender" (minimizer) variables E X and "attacker" (maximizer) variables E y) these also referred to as first-stage and second-stage decision variables, respectively, in the bi-level optimization literature. In addition, we allow for "third-stage" decisions z E Z that are fully defined via a set of implicit constraints on 2, y, and 2.
Specifically, we consider problems the form
minimize max E(x, U, xEX
HEY
(1)
S. g y. 2) 0, = = 2,
where X, V/ and 2 are compact sets; L X' loss function (c.g.. softmax or mean squared error loss); and X x y x Z + R. is defined such that g( y. 2) is an implicit function in z with some solution E for all (x, y) X x y. We further restrict ourselves to those functions that are continuously differentiable with non-singular Jacobians at their roots, i.e., those functions that are compatible with the implicit function theorem 12 We note that this formulation covers a wide range of settings, e.g., many minimax problems with non-linear physical constraints, or many tri-level optimization problems where solution to continuous optimization problem parameterized by and (both of which notions we will use in Section for the setting N-k SCOPF).
- R is standard, continuously differentiable
Inspired by the literature on adversarial robustness deep learning, we propose to solve problem (I) via gradient-based search on both the inner maximization and outer minimization problems. In particular, this entails (a) obtaining some (approximately) optimal for the inner maximization problem via gradient-based techniques, given some initial value of æ, (b) updating æ using the gradient at the optimum of the inner maximization problem, and (c) repeating these steps until convergence. We now describe steps (a) and (b) in additional detail.
3.1 Solving the inner maximization problem
Let denote some fixed value for x. The inner maximization problem then given by
((. t.t. g(ā, v. 2) 0, E 2.
yEY
We optimize this problem via projected gradient descent. Specifically. let y yo denote our initial guess for the optimal attack, and let denote the projection operator. Until convergence (or for some fixed number of iterations),
then
Obtain =* such that g(E, y, x*) 0, x² EEE Z.
(ii) Update y Py (y , (i,,,, for step size 7,
Notably, step entails obtaining the gradient Vyl(i, y, 2*). By the chain rule, this involves the gradient through 2*, which is the solution to a set of implicit equations. Specifically, using the notation d denote total derivatives (c.g., gradients) and Ø denote partial derivatives, have
dé(ā, y. 2) dy
al(z, v.2*)
06(8, y, x") de* Oz*
(3)
Oy
dy
3

---

By the implicit function theorem, we can then obtain an expression for dx /dy by noting that (ā x*)
v²)") Ög(2, v,2²) Og(T. y. x²)
dz"
d=
dy -
[Tg (0g(TNM.) y,,²)
= 0
dy
dy
0=*
dy
02*
Dy
which we can plug into Equation to yield our full update.
We note that in practice, we seldom want to compute the Jacobian d= /ay E Redi((2) explicitly due to the potentially large time and space complexity of doing so; instead, it is often desirable to compute the left vector vector-matrix product (9t/az" ) (dz² /ay) E (i)mm)))) directly. We refer to this strategy as the Jacobian product trick." " The details of the relevant computations may vary based on the particular setting at hand, and we describe how we employ this trick for SCOPF in Section 4.3
3.2 Taking a gradient step in the minimization problem
Given some (approximately) optimal y" and associated 2 from the inner optimization under the current value of x 2, the outer optimization problem then becomes
min SEX
U(r,y"= 2*) s.t. g(a, ;-)
x()) =0
(5)
One option is to then update via projected gradient step t- Px VV_(x, (""(,,,","))))))"))""""))))))")) for step size B. To calculate the gradient V v,l(x, y" =²), ), we note that by Danskin's theorem, we can disregard the dependence of y" on ( (though we cannot ignore the dependence of =*). As such, we can employ a similar process as in Equations 3 and ( where we treat y" as constant when computing gradients with respect to æ We note that while this one potential process for updating x. we
actually employ a more efficient, domain-specific process for our SCOPF procedure (see Section
4 Addressing N-k SCOPF via adversarially robust optimization
Having presented this generic formulation, we now introduce our approach, CANOY, for addressing SCOPF In particular, we consider the problem of N-k SCOPF, where power generation must be scheduled so as to be feasible and low-cost both in the absence of equipment outages ("base case") as well as to be robust any i simultaneous outages of power generators or lines that may occur ("contingency cases"). We note that the set of contingencies i.c., allowable combinations of outages is combinatorial in the number of potential outages, making the SCOPF problem extremely computationally expensive. For instance, a realistic 4622 node system with 6133 potential single outages has ~38.5 billion contingency scenarios to consider under the N-3 setting.
In the rest of this section, we first more formally define the N-k SCOPF problem. We then show how we rewrite N-k SCOPF as minimax problem of the form ①.. in particular by forming compact outer approximation to the contingency space. Finally, we describe how we solve this problem using combination of gradient- based techniques and domain-spectin enhancements, summarized in Algorithm
4.1 Defining N-k SCOPF
Let x denote the dispatch i.e., setpoints of real power and voltage magnitude at all power generators on the electricity system, and let X' represent generator wise box constraints on the dispatch. Let C denote the set of potential contingencies, i.e., all sets of exactly i potential outages.
Technically, Danskin's theorem only holds when y" is a unique optimum of the inner maximization problem. However, in the adversarially robust training literature, the conditions of Danskin's 's theorem do not necessarily hold in particular, the inner maximization problem often does not have unique optimum, and but this method of
many implementations tend generate approximate (rather than exact) optima X g computing gradients is used in practice regardless [..
CANNY stands for "CMU Adversarial Networks with Differentiable contingenc Y." This name is inspired by that of SUGAR 4 whose power flow solver differentiate through in this work.
'Modern electric power systems are generally alternating current (AC) systems, in which all electrical quantities e.g., powers and voltages- are considered to be complex-valued In particular, the terms real power and reactive power refer to the real and imaginary components, respectively, of complex power.

---

Algorithm CANDY
1: procedure MAYS(sys) // inpul: power system description
2: init dispatch // e-g. via base case optimal power flow
3: while not converged do
4:
1 ATTACK(SYS, x)) // worrtt-case attack for current dispatch
update x via partial solve of Equation 12 using Gauss-Siedel 6: end while
5:
7:
end procedure
8:
9: procedure ATTACK(SYS, x:)
10:
init attack
11:
while not converged or for fixed number of steps do third-stage variables // gradient of attack objective for attack set y, step size ?
compute z², 8* via Equation Sc
13:
compute (x, =", 8*) via Equation
14:
update - Py (y + 7V 7V, end while return y end procedure
15:
16:
17:
Finally, let 2(1) Zi(x, c represent slightly adjusted settings of real power and voltage magnitude that the power system operator can create after scheduling x and then observing some contingency ((3) E C, where the 2, represent box constraints. Then, the N-k SCOPF problem can expressed as
minimize sEX
S (a:)
Σ (219)
(z (l)
subject to fRow (It Whase)
O, Whose E Whase
(6)
argmin, (z,,()))))) (2) c(i) c(()
Vel EC,
E
8. L. floo (2 (() x) = 0, w(() E Wi(a,
where fhase : X' + IR represents base case power production costs; Flow base X Whase R represents the non-linear power flow equations in the base case, with Thbs being the number of power system nodes; Whase represents electrical quantities that result from solving the base case power flow equations (e.g., reactive powers and voltage angles), with box constraints (device limits) represented by Whuse: and faom 2, C + R. !floo.cont Z, x W; X - R", and (.()) E Wi(x, c(f) represent their respective contingency-con counterparts. (See Appendix for a more explicit formulation.)
4.2 Rewriting N-k SCOPF as a minimax problem
We reformulate the SCOPF problem 66) as an attacker-defedeer game, where the defender must choose a dispatch that robust to potential "worst-case" contingencies chosen by an attacker. In particular, since the contingency set C is discrete, we create a continuous outer approximation to this order enable the use of gradient-based techniques. Specifically, let n. be the number of generators or power lines that can potentially experience outage. Then, for any [0, 1]",, we define the jth entry as follows:
iff outage j fully active, iff' outage j is not active,
ag E (0,1)
iff outage j is partially active with fraction Oj..
The first two notions presented in Equation are standard in power systems: the generator or line pertinent to outage j either fully operational or out of service. We newly define the notion of partial outage with fraction a, as one in which the power flowing through the outage device during normal operation has been reduced by a factor of ay. For instance, we model a partial contingency on a transmission line or transformer device as reducing its admittance (i.e., ability to conduct current) by factor of a,- Similarly, we restrict the power produced by generator undergoing a partial contingency by multiplying its power output by aj.
5

---

Given these notions, we define our "threat model" for the N-k SCOPF setting to contain all vectors y with an L1-norm of at most k, i.e., y := {y y E [o, 10, Illll S k). Notably, the original contingency set C is fully represented within V/ and in fact, all scenarios with up to k simultaneous potential outages are also represented. As such, y represents a much broader set of potential contingencies than specified in the original problem. (Relevantly for projected gradient descent, this is also a convex set.) Using this set, we can then write our reformulation of the SCOPF problem as
1
minimize max Stuse + Seant (2, + 2 =101112
(8a)
yey
subject to Iioow, base (2,, Whase) = O, Wbase E Wease
(8b)
argmin,g22 RER Soom (2,y) 1) 1 8. t. (ffoow (2, Weont; 2) + 0, Weont E Weont (2r, v):
2,5 E
(8c)
where E S optimization problem, as necessitated by the expanded contingency set. In particular, the goal of the attacker is to now find set of partial outages that not only increase the cost of power generation, but also create instabilities in the grid, as captured by s. As we hinted at in Section S this a minimax optimization problem with implicit constraints over the third-stage variables 2, Wbase.
2 are slack variables representing potential infeasibilities in the third-stage
Woont, and s, incorporating both non-linear equality constraints (8b) as well as an optimization-basee constraint (c).
4.3 Obtaining attack gradients
As described in Section 3.1 we aim to find the worst-case attack via projected gradient descent. In particular, we must compute the gradient of the minimax loss with respect to y, which is given by
de fcoum(z"..) By
Ofcoml (2" d2* ds*
.z)
dy
Oz*
dy
dy
(As the base case power production cost and the base case power flow constraint (b) have no dependence on y, we do not need to consider these terms during the inner maximization.)
To calculate the terms da /dy and da ds'/dy, we implicitly differentiate through the third-stage opti- mization problem (cb. In order to do so inexpensively, we reuse the results of computations that were executed when originally obtaining 2 and s*. More specifically, order to obtain 2 and s*, we solve the non-linear KKT conditions of optimization problem (8c) using Newton solver (see Appendix B), which entails linearizing these equations at each iteration. At convergence, we then implicitly differentiate through the linear fixed-point equation obtained at the last iteration:
dJ 22"
ds dg
db dy
de
dJ dy
db
=
b dy
+
dy de dy
+
dy
dy
(10)
where J E Raxd is the Jacobian of the non-linear KKT system and b E R is the corresponding right hand side vector, for d = d2m(2) dim We note that since the system Jacobian J is in practice extremely sparse, the inverse term J-1 can be computed extremely efficiently using sparse LU factorization; similarly, the higher-order derivative dd/dp is extremely sparse and can be computed efficiently. We refer the reader to [4 for more details.
Substituting this result into Equation
(). the overall gradient of the loss is then given by
de Scvmm (zom((""000 dy Oy
(z",9)
0. (=".9) Oz*
dJ
db
+
+
(11)
dy
8*
dy
As hinted earlier, we employ the "vector-Jacobian product trick" in order to efficiently compute these dx'/dg /dy and de de'/ay /ay explicitly via Equation (T), we directly compute their left vector-matrix product with the relevant partial derívatives of the loss - i.e., the blue term in Equation [ with multiplications evaluated from left to right to ensure we are always taking matrix vector (rather than matrix -mtrix) products. Inspired by [3]. we also reuse the LU factor from the last Newton solve computed when obtaining 2"
gradients (see, e.g., (III). In particular, rather than computing the terms dx"

---

and s* in order to avoid explicitly (re coompuiing the matrix inverse J-!. Finally, we note that for this specific problem, while the last term dy + dy nominally involves tensor products, the relevant terms are vastly sparse due the structure of the underlying physics with more than 20 nonzero entries per potential outage making these products relatively cheap to compute in practice.
4.4 Solving the defense minimization
After obtaining a worst-case attack y", our next step is to adjust our dispatch x E X in response. As described in Section 3.2 for the generic setting, one option to do this involves taking a projected gradient step in I. However, we adopt different approach for N-k SCOPF, due to the practical requirements of this setting. In particular, general system requirement is that the base case power flow equations 9itow 9tsew (.) = must remain feasible under the dispatch x E X, as the most likely scenario is that contingency will occur. However, projecting onto this (non-linear, non-convex) set of constraints can be expensive.
As result, we instead note that we can rewrite the N-k SCOPF minimax problem minimization problem:
g
as a single
1 ||s|1
minimize zEX' #E2(2,))) "E
fuase (x)) (x) + fcont (2, (2,8)) 3
subject to
Glow hase (Ir, Whase)
0, Whase Whase
(12)
Inow.comt (2, Weont x)) + ===0 0, Weont E Weom (z,
To determine our next iterate of x. our strategy then to partially solve this optimization problem by running one step of non-linear Gauss-Seide method, and then keep the value of z obtained from that step. This allows us to incrementally update x in a direction that is more robust to the worst-case attack y", while still maintaining the feasibility of the base case power flow equations.
Importantly, we are able to run this procedure efficiently, as we can reuse the results of existing computations that were executed when obtaining the optimal attack y". In particular, as we describe more detail in Appendix C we can split the KKT conditions of the problem [2 into two groups:
dC/an
(Oghrv oon Werer w//ox) T
Avnat
L'aase (I, Whases Abase) +
(13a)
dCfas
dC/ae
Feom (2, Weant, Acomt) +
0
= 0,
(13b)
af/axam/
Inow cont come(z; Weontt xx)
where denotes the Lagrangian of problem 112. and Absse and Acoont are the dual variables on the base case and contingency power flow constraints, respectively. We note that the two terms Fiase and Foont are independent terms of their inputs, but are weakly coupled via the additional terms (which represent sparse set of ramping constraints and voltage setpoints that tie together the base and contingency cases). This an ideal setup for decoupling through non-linear Gauss-Seided solution methods. In addition, the contingency-relee related KKT conditions (13b) actually identical to the KKT conditions of the problem &ch that we solved during the last iteration of the inner maximization problem; as result, can reuse the result of this previous computation when executing Gauss-Seidel step. Together, this allows us to inexpensively identify an update direction for x that nonetheless remains feasible with respect to the base case power flow constraints.
Experiments
We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on the settings of N-1, N-2 and N-3 SCOPE. In particular, noting that quality of adversarial attacks is likely to have a large effect on the success of our overall procedure, we first visualize the attacks found by our inner maximization process (Sections 3. on small power system test case. We then demonstrate the performance of our overall approach on a realistic 4622-node power system with approximately 6 thousand potential N-1 contingencies, almost 19 million N-2 contingencies, and over 38 billion N-3 contingencies. We show that CANDY
7

---

Bus
5205
Bus
15
Loss Furction Value
5200
Bus
Bus
lus
6195
Dus
5190
Bus 2
Iterations
(a) Visualization of the worst-case contingency found, with the degree of the associated partial outage each line indicated blue. (Plot generated via PowerWorld.)
(b) Training curve for finding worst-casc contin- gency. The process converges within iterations, and increases the loss by 3%.
Figure I: Illustrative example of finding worst-case N-2 contingency 14-node test system.
able to efficiently find solutions that are competitive with other leading approaches in the N-1 case, while reducing violations in the N-2 and N-3 scenarios compared to a base case optimal power flow.
All experiments implement our approach in Python, using custom optimal power flow solver called SUGAR [55] to compute optimization (8c). and CVXPY 4o to compute convex projections for projected gradient descent. We evaluate all dispatch solutions using PowerWorld, commercial power flow tool.
single
of Macbook Pro with 2.6 GHz Core i7 CPU. We
5.1 Illustrative adversarial attack
Finding worst-case contingencies is often beneficial to power systems engineers, who try to identify fragile areas of their grid for future development. Traditionally, engineers use linear approximations of the grid physics 44 49 to identify single outages that pose a significant risk to system stability. However, given that the underlying physics are fundamentally non-linear, such linear approximations quickly become inaccurate when trying to identify the risks associated with multiple simultaneous outages. Our implicit differentiation approach, on the other hand, employs accurate gradient informa- tion from the physics of the network to quickly identify contingencies that maximally increase our loss function (or an alternative loss function of choice that also captures system infeasibilities).
For ease of visualization, we demonstrate this attack-identification approach on the IEEE 14-node test system. In particular, identify an adversarial N-2 contingency on this system in just iterations (approximately one minute), increasing the value of the loss function by 3% over the base case scenario, as shown in Figure lb This worst-case contingency represents combination of multiple partial outages on different lines, and (perhaps surprisingly) does not include any generator outages, as shown in Figure La This is likely to present stronger attack than those obtained via the "standard" linear approximation approach, serving as potential benefit to power system planners who are trying reinforce their grid, as well as to "adversarially robust training" procedures like ours.
5.2 Validating N-1 security
Today, most grid operators in the United States require that their dispatch be N-1 secure, i.c., secure against any single outage, prompting the development of associated methods. In particular, the recent Grid Optimization (GO) Competition (34], hosted by ARPA-E, focused on finding algorithms to solve N-1 SCOPF. Each participating team used variety of methods to produce a dispatch that was evaluated on the basis of power cost and feasibility in both base and contingency cases. order to validate that our method works well in the N-1 setting, we solve particular case from the competition namely, the 4622-node test case with sub-selection of 3071 N-1 potential contingencies, provided part of the Challenge stage by constructing our relaxed contingency set y with k 1.

---

gollnl
GO-SNIP
GMI-GO
BAT
gravityx
CANØY*
GO Challenge Rank
1
5
Score for 5K network 546,302
553,152
553,328
545,783
550,020
552,032
Table 1: Comparison of the performance of our method against top-performing submissions to the ARPA-E GO Competition, which addresses N-1 SCOPF (lower scores better). Results shown for the 4622-node Challenge I test case ("5K network"). While the score comparisons shown are inexact due to subtleties of the evaluation metric (see Appendix D) high level, we see that CANOY performs competitively with all top-scoring methods.
1.5 x10
Contingency type
N-1
N-2
N-3
Scenarios tested
6,133
359,712
428,730
Loos Function Value
OPF viol.
59
10,572
4,086
PowerModels viol.
37
4,005
5,391
CANOY viol. (ours)
36
3,580
1,122
1.3
1.28
Table 2: Number of feasibility violations incurred by the N-3 SCOPF version of our method, a baseline op- timal power flow (OPF), and the PowerModels N-1 SCOPF solver (50) on randomly selected N-1, N-2, N- 3 contingency scenarios for 4622-node test case. We see that CANOY reduces the number of N-2 and N-3 violations by factor of 3-4x over the OPF baseline, and the number of N-3 violations by a factor of 5x over the PowerModels solution.
Iooraioons
Figure 2: Loss vs. iterations in adversarial training. Each attack stage is at most 10 iterations and each defense stage is one iter- ation. The loss value after the defense step is in green.
We find that our score is comparable against the top approaches submitted to the GO Competition, as shown in Table We note that these score comparisons are not exact, as our power flow solver uses a more realistic model for coupling between the base and contingency cases than was posed in Challenge 1, which affects the way that the evaluation metric is computed (see Appendix D) Nonetheless, at high level, these results demonstrate that our method performs competitively with respect to the top-performing methods for solving N-1 SCOPF.
5.3 Improving N-3 SCOPF
We now describe the performance of our method on main setting of interest: N-3 SCOPF. While other competitive methods exist for solving N-1 SCOPF, previous work has struggled to approach settings allowing for larger numbers of simultaneous outages (e.g., N-k SCOPF for k = 2 or 3) due to the associated combinatorial explosion in problem size. Our method, however, scales gracefully need only tweak the value of used within our attack set y = {y y E [0, 11=e, ||y|| < k). More specifically, each iteration of the attack maximization and each defense step calculation take approximately the same amount of time regardless of the value of k, given that the costs the gradient computations, projections, and (optimal) power flow solves are independent of k. (The total number of iterations it takes for our method to converge may vary between settings, though we do not notice substantive difference in this respect between the N-1, N-2, and N-3 versions our approach during our experiments.)
with respect to the number of allowable simultaneous outages,
We use our method to attempt to solve N-3 SCOPF (i.e., set k: = 3) on a 4622-node test case over all 6133 potential outages (i.e., over 38 billion N-3 contingency scenarios); the associated training curve shown in Figure In total, our approach takes only 21 minutes to converge.
We evaluate the strength of our obtained dispatch in maintaining feasibility against combination of N-1, N-2, and N-3 contingency scenarios, which are all technically contained within the threat model represented by choice of Y. We note that while full security against all these contingencies

---

is likely impossible with single dispatch e.g., we can very often construct an N-3 contingeney that isolates, or islands, some non-self-sustee susfainnta part of the electrical grid we aim to demonstrate that our method can improve upon existing methods in terms of providing robustness against wide variety of scenarios. As there remain lack of available N-2 or N-3 SCOPF methods against which we can readily compare, we compare our performance against that of base case optimal power flow (OPF) solver, as well as the open-source PowerModels N-1 SCOPF algorithm [50]. Due to the intractability of evaluating these dispatches all possible contingency scenarios, we randomly sub-select the set N-1, N-2, and N-3 scenarios on which we evaluate, and run these evaluations in PowerWorld over the course of several days.
The results of our evaluation are shown in Table 2 Overall, we see that CANOY significantly reduces the number of total contingency violations as compared to the OPF solution by factor of 3-4x. While the PowerModels baseline and our approach perform comparably with respect to N-1 and N-2 contingency violations, our approach incurs nearly 5x fewer N-3 violations as compared to PowerModels. Analyzing the N-3 contingencies in more detail, we find that of the 4086 specific violations incurred by OPF, 931 of those were also incurred by CANOY (while the remaining 191 violations incurred by our method were disjoint). Overall, these results indicate that our method is much more effective than OPF and benchmark N-1 SCOPF solver at guarding against N-2 and N-3 contingencies, though the actual distribution of specific contingencies that are guarded against may differ between these methods.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have described our approach, CANOY, for N-k flow. Specifically, we formulate N-k SCOPF as a minimax problem over power system dispatches and potential outages by forming a continuous outer approximation to the contingency space. This enables us to compute "worst-case" contingencies via projected gradient descent (using tricks from the implicit layers literature) and then employ these contingencies to update our proposed dispatch. Notably, our formulation scales gracefully in the number of contingencies - requiring only a minor tweak to the projection set during the attack step even as the underlying problem scales combinatorially. In particular, our approach takes only 21 minutes to converge on a standard laptop for a realistic 4622-node test case with over 38 billion potential N-3 contingencies. We show that our approach reduces N-3 feasibility violations by a factor of 3-4x compared to a baseline optimal power flow method and by almost 5x compared to a baseline N-1 SCOPF solver. Overall, we believe this demonstrates the promise of our approach in enabling scalable N-k security-constraine optimization on realistic-scale power grids.
optimal power
We note that the success of our minimax optimization approach is likely highly reliant on the strength of the adversarial attacks that we generate, just as in the adversarially robust training literature As such, a fruitful direction for future work may involve developing improved procedures for obtaining adversarial attacks in the context of SCOPF. In addition, given the large scale of the power networks we consider, it is generally impossible to evaluate proposed dispatches against the full suite of potential contingencies in order to check whether they are indeed N-k secure. Given that, another fruitful direction may entail developing better evaluation metrics or verification procedures to inexpensively evaluate whether proposed SCOPF dispatch is (likely) robust, perhaps again drawing inspiration from the literature on verification methods for adversarially robust deep learning [5T].
7 Broader impacts
To address climate and sustainability goals, many power grids are starting to integrate larger amounts of time-varying renewable energy, such as solar and wind. As described in [52]. this means power systems optimization problems must generally be solved both more quickly and at larger scales. In addition, weather extremes driven by climate change [ yield significant need for resilient power system optimization. We believe our work makes an important contribution this area by providing a scalable and efficient method to address N-k SCOPF. One potential concern, however, is that our method relies on identifying "worst-case" power system attacks, and our associated approach could theoretically be exploited by adversarial actors; that said, we believe it unlikely that our method in partieular would be used for this purpose, as employs continuous "partial outage" approximation that is useful for the purposes of our algorithm, but does not map neatly to actual real-world attacks.
10

---

Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fel- lowship DEE-FG02-97ER253008 the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making through cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon University SSES-00949710) the National Science Foundation (ECCS-1800812), the Computational Sustainabil- ity Network, and the Bosch Center for AI.
We thank Eric Wong, George Haff, Marko Jereminov, Amritanshu Pandey, and anonymous reviewers for their input this work.
References
Aharon Ben-Tal, Laurent El Ghaoui, and Arkadi Nemirovski. Robust optimizaaiion Princeton university press, 2009.
[2] Dimitris Bertsimas, David Brown, and Constantine Caramanis. Theory and applications of robust optimization. SIAM review, 53(3):644 501, 2011.
[3] Zico Kolter and Aleksander Madry. Adversarial robustness theory and practice. adveraarial-ml- www.aaaiiaaaa-ttttttollllloo..o. tutorial.org/ 12 2018.
https://
[4] Han Xu, Yao Ma, Hao-Chen Liu, Debayan Deh, Hui Liu, Ji-Liang Tang, and Anil K Jain. Adversarial attacks and defenses in images, graphs and text: A review. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 17(2):151-175 2020.
[5] Eric Wong. Frank Schmidt, Jan Hendrik Metzen, and Zico Kolter. Scaling provable adversarial defenses. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 8410-8419, 2018.
Aditi Raghunathan, Jacob Steinhardt, and Percy Liang. Certified defenses against adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv: 09344444 2018
[7] Eric Wong and Zico Kolter. Provable defenses against adversarial examples via the convex outer adversarial polytope. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1286-5295, PMLR, 2018.
[8] lan Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Explaining and hamesssing adversarial examples. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
[9] Aleksander Madry. Aleksandar Makelov. Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. To- wards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representationss 2018
[10] Asen I. Dontchev and R Tyrelll Rockafellar. Implicit functions and solution mappings, volume 543. Springer, 2009.
[11] Andreas Griewank and Andrea Walther. Evaluating derivatives: principles and techniques of algorithmic differentiation. SIAM, 2008
[12] Zico Kolter. David Duvenaud, and Matthew Johnson. Tutorial: Deep implicit layers neural odes, deep cquilibirum models, and beyond. http://impllcit-layyrrss wttpsrsstttrrrrlorrgoooo 12 2020.
[13] Brandon Amos and Zico Kolter. OptNet: Differentiable Optimization as a Layer in Neural Networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 136-145. PMLR, 2017.
[14] Josip Djolonga and Andreas Krause. Differentiable learning of submodular models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017.
[15] Sebastian Tschiatschck, Aytune Sahin, and Andreas Krause. Diffcrentiable submodular maximization. Preprint 1033::/88033073330 2018.
[16] Priya I. Donti, Inês Lima Azevedo, and Zico Kolter. Inverse optimal power flow: Assessing the vulnerability of power grid data. Workshop on Modeling the Physical World: Perception, Learning, and Control at NeurIPS, 2018
[17] Akshay Agrawal, Brandon Amos, Shane Barratt, Stephen Boyd, Steven Diamond, and J Zico Kolter. Dif- ferentiable convex optimization layers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). 2019.

---

[18] Stephen Gould, Richard Hartley, and Dylan Campbell. Deep declarative networks: A new hope Preprint arXiv: 0000004866, 2019.
[19] Po-Wei Wang, Priya I. Donti, Bryan Wilder, and Zico Kolter. SATNet: Bridging deep learning and logical reasoning using a differentiable satistiability solver. In International Conference Machine Learning (ICML). 2019.
[20] Ricky TQ Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David K. Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2018.
[21] Filipe de Avila Belbute-Peres, Kevin Smith, Kelsey Allen, Josh Tenenbaum, and Zico Kolter. End-to-end differentiable physics for learning and control. In Advances Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2018.
[22] Chun Kai Ling, Fei Fang, and J Zico Kolter. What game are we playing? End-to-end learning in normal and extensive form games. Preprint 1xXiv11805002777 2018.
[23] Shaojie Bai, Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. Deep equilibrium models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NewrIPS), 2019.
[24] Priya I. Donti, Brandon Amos, and Zico Kolter. Task-hased end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization. Preprint arXiv:1703.045335 2017.
[25] Bryan Wilder, Bistra Dilkina, and Milind Tambe. Melding the data-decisions pipeline: Decision-focusee learning for combinatorial optimization. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018.
[26] Jan Larsen, Lars Kai Hansen, Claus Svarer, and M Ohisson. Design and regularization of neural networks: the optimal use of a validation sct. In Neural Nenworks for Signal Processing VI. Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Signal Processing Society Workshop. pages 62-71. IEEE, 1996.
[27] Yoshua Bengio. Gradient-based optimization of hyperparameters. Neural computation, 12(8):1889-1 2000.
[28] Fabian Pedregosa. Hyperparameter optimization with approximate gradient. In International conference machine learning, pages 737-746. PMLR, 2016.
[29] Matthew MacKay, Paul Vicol, Jon Lorraine, David Duvenaud, and Roger Grosse. Self-tuning net- works: Bilevel optimization of hyperparameters using structured best-response functions. arXiv preprint vrXiv:1903.0300 2019.
[30] Wanxin Jin, Zhaoran Wang, Zhuoran Yang, and Shaoshuai Mou. Pontryagin differentiable programming: An end-to-end learning and control framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:19/2.12970 2019.
[31] Mohammadhafez Bazrafshan, Kyri Baker, and Javad Mohammadi. Computationally efficient solutions for large-scale sccurity-constrained optimal power flow, arXiv preprint (0l::2006.00588. 2020.
[32] Leonel de Magalhäes Carvalho, Armando Martins Leite da Silva, and Vladimiro Miranda. Security- constrained optimal power flow via cross-entropy method. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 336666621-6229 2018
[33] Mingyu Yan, Mohammad Shahidehpour, Aleksi Paaso, Liuxi Zhang, Ahmed Alabdulwahab, and Abdullah Abusorahh. A convex three-stage scopf approach to power system flexibility with unified power flow controllers. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 36(3):1947 2011.
[34] ARPA-E. Grid Optimization (GO) Competition. htttpe://gocompetttiie wtw.:eeeettiiiitooooeeee.....
2019.
[35] Catherine Morehouse. Ercot releases plan to boost reliability after blackouts, as report outlines gas, electric failures. Utility Dive.
[36] Liam Stoker. National grid eso probing power cuts following sudden generation collapse. Current.
[37] IPCC, 2021:
Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Con- tribution of Working Group to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Massoon-eemoote Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)). Cambridge University Press. 2021.
V. P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.
[38] Sinnott J Murphy, Correlated Generator Failures and Power System Reliability. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University. 2019.
12

---

[39] Alexandre Moreira, Alexandre Street, and José M Arroyo. An adjustable robust optimization approach for continngency-conssraannee transmission expansion planning. IEEE Transactions Power Systems, 30(4):2013-2022, 2014.
[40] Qianfan Wang.
Jean-Pau Watson, and Yongpei Guan. Two-stage robust optimization for n-k contingency- constrained unit commitment. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28(3):2366-2333
[41] Shaoyun Hong, Haozhong Cheng, and Pingliang Zeng- N-k constrained composite generation and transmission expansion planning with interval load. IEEE Access, 5:2779 2789, 2017.
[42] Steven G Krantz and Harold Parks. The implicit,function function theorem: history, theory, and applications. Springer Science Business Media, 2012.
[43] Amritanshu Pandey, Marko Jereminov, Martin R Wagner, David M Bromberg, Gabriela Hug, and Larry Pileggi. Robust power flow and three-phase power flow analyses. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34(1):616 626, 2018.
[44] Lawrence Pillage. Electronic Circuit System Simulation Methods (SRE). McGraw-Hill,, Inc., 1998.
[45] Amritanshu Pandey, Aayushya Agarwal, and Larry Pileggi. Incremental model building homotopy approach solving exact ac-constrained optimal power flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.000 100587, 2020.
[46] Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. Cvxpy: python-embeuded modeling language for convex optimiza- tion. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(1):2009-2913, 2016.
[47] P. Kaplumovich and K. Turitsyn. Fast and reliable scrcening n-2 contingencies. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 31(6):4233 4252, 2016.
[48] Liang Che, Xuan Liu, and Zuyi Li. Screening hidden line contingencies in smart grids using multi-stage model. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 1002):1800-1289, 2019.
[49] Saqib Hasan, Amin Ghafouri, Abhishek Dubey, Gabor Karsai, and Xenofon Koutsoukos. Hcuristics- approach for identifying critical contingencies power systems. 2017 Resilience Week (RWS), pages 191-197, 2017.
[50] Carleton Coffrin, Russell Bent, Kaarthik Sundar, Ycesian Ng, and Miles Lubin. Powermodels, jl: An open-source framework for exploring power flow formulations. pages 1-8, 06 2018.
[51] Nicholas Carlini, Anish Athalye, Nicolas Papernot, Wieland Brendel, Jonas Rauber, Dimitris Tsipras, Goodfellow, Aleksander Madry, and Alexey Kurakin. On evaluating adversarial robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1902.06705 2019.
[52] David Rolnick, Priya L Donti, Lynn H Kaack, Kelly Kochanski, Alexandre Lacoste, Kris Sankaran, Andrew Slavin Ross, Nikola Milojevic-Dupont Natasha Jaques, Anna Waldman-Brown, al. Tackling climate change with machine learning, arXiv preprint 1rXiv:1906.055 054333 2019.
13


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "rpkbUNhThz6", "reviewer": "Reviewer_MetJ", "summary": "The authors develop a new method for solving the N-k SCOPF problem, an optimal power flow problem robust to any $k$ outages. Specifically, they relax the problem to allow for any convex combination of outages that has total 1-norm less than $k$. They then leverage recently popularized implicit differentiation techniques to solve the resulting minimax problem. Their formulation works for generic minimax problems, although one can exploit problem-specific structure when solving the N-k SCOPF problem. Finally, they test their method on a reasonably large test case for $k = 1, 2, 3$, and show that it finds a solution in a reasonable amount of time that improves upon standard OPF (in terms of the number of violations).", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "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": "", "main_review": "The main contribution of the paper is to use implicit differentiation to solve a relaxed version of the N-k SCOPF problem. This contribution is novel (as far as I’m aware of) and clearly addresses the scalability issues that arise when solving robust OPF problems on large networks. Given the large size of most real power networks, the paper represents an important step towards scaling N-k OPF to real networks (for $k >= 2$ of course).\n\nThe results appear technically sound, and the writing is very clear. One statement I found slightly confusing was that on line 223—why wouldn’t projected gradient descent guarantee feasibility (shouldn’t the projection onto the feasible set take care of this)?\n\nThe experiments section clearly verified that the method works and produces reasonable results in an acceptable amount of time. However, I’m not 100% certain this method produces better results than a simple robust OPF solver (how does it compare to N-1 SCOPF), since comparing directly to standard OPF is a bit of a straw man. Would it be possible to add the number of violations produced by N-1 SCOPF to Table 2? This would give the reader a better sense of how this method compares to standard robust OPF methods (especially since N-1 is so often used in practice).\n\n\n\nMinor Comments\n- On line 95, should maximizer and minimizer be switched? \n- What is the origin / purpose / utility of the name CAN$\\partial$Y?\n- In Table 1, is a lower or higher score better?", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "Although the author allude to the lack of theoretical guarantees associated with their method in the first paragraph of the introduction, it would be nice to state this limitation explicitly later in the paper.\n\nThe broader impact, including the potential negative societal impact, are clearly stated in the paper.", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"ethical_concerns": "None", "needs_ethics_review": "No", "ethics_review_area": "", "time_spent_reviewing": "5"}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "rUAFTz9-sH6", "reviewer": "Reviewer_h3da", "summary": "This paper formulates a challenging optimal power flow problem as adversarial optimization problem, where the adversarial optimization problem has a challenging equality constraint.  The paper gives a principled approach to solve this problem and give convincing empirical results of the superiority of the approach.", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 7, "confidence": 2, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "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": "", "main_review": "It is delightful read. The paper is very crisp: problem definitions, approach, derivations, etc. And empirical results demonstrate convincingly its effectiveness, especially for N-2, and N-3 settings.\n\nI am however not familiar with optimal power flow problem -- Is it really important to solve N-2 and N-3 settings? More discussions would be useful.", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "Yes", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"needs_ethics_review": "No", "ethics_review_area": "", "time_spent_reviewing": "2"}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "VbtoHFgsJyU", "reviewer": "Reviewer_SScg", "summary": "This paper seeks to apply the techniques developed for adversarial robustness in machine learning to the problem of robust optimal power flow. It presents a formulation for the robust optimization problem, shows an efficient gradient-based optimization method and evaluates the effectiveness of the method.", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 1, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "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": "", "main_review": "I have to admit that this paper is a little outside of my expertise. My experience is mostly in adversarial robustness in machine learning. This work is more about optimal power flow. The paper does not seem to have any connection to adversarial learning apart from the fact that it uses adversarial training to robustly optimize an objective function. Having said that, I find this to be an interesting paper that utilizes the techniques used in adversarial robustness to design robust solutions for the optimal power flow problem. The paper combines well-known mathematical concepts, such as implicit function theorem and implicit differentiation, in a new way to achieve this goal. The method developed in this work is clearly presented and is backed up with theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation. It might also have applications other than the problem of optimal power flow considered in this paper.", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "The authors have discussed the limitations and societal impact of the work.", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"needs_ethics_review": "No", "ethics_review_area": "", "time_spent_reviewing": "6"}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "9iPJ91bVDJ3", "reviewer": "Reviewer_eZgw", "summary": "In this paper, N-k SCOPF is formulated and solved through the lens of adversarial learning and the implicit function theory. Thus, problem formulation and the development of a multi-level optimization algorithm are two key contributions. Meanwhile, the paper is mostly well written and easy to follow. ", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "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": "", "main_review": "Strength:\n\n+ Rewriting N-k SCOPF as a minimax problem is a novel idea. \n\n+ Obtaining (implicit) attack gradients via KKT conditions is interesting. \n\n+ The proposed seems scalable even if high-order derivatives and matrix inversion exist. \n\nWeakness:\n\n- Although the paper is written well in general, several important details are missing in the main paper. For example, Appendix B should be placed in the main body since this is a critical derivation to obtain implicit gradients. Moreover, a pseudo-algorithm that summarizes both attacks and defend steps will make the proposed optimization steps clear. \n\n- In Eq. (11), it is not clear how to simplify the computation of $J^{-1}$.  Also, will $\\frac{d J}{d y}$ involve higher-order derivatives? If so, how to overcome the scalability issue?\n\n- A computation complexity analysis of the proposed algorithm, e..g, in the big O notation, will make the scalability argument more convincing. \n\n- The implementation details of the proposed algorithm were not clearly discussed in experiments. E.g., hyper-parameter selection associated with the algorithm?\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "Yes, the authors have adequately discussed the limitations and potential negative societal impact.", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"needs_ethics_review": "No", "ethics_review_area": "", "time_spent_reviewing": "3 hours"}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper considers the N-k security-constrained optimal power flow problem using ideas from adversarially robust training. In particular, they design gradient based methods to solve this problem and implement it on N-3 SCOPF which has been traditionally considered out of reach of existing approaches. All the reviewers agree that this paper makes a nice and interesting contribution to this problem and recommend acceptance.
Decision: Accept (Poster)