Learn Feasibility Once, Optimize All Objectives: Derivative-Free Diffusion Models for Chance-Constrained Programming
Authors: Ziwen Liu, Yan Liu, Congying Han, Tiande Guo, Yao Yan, Weichen Zhao
Organizations: School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · School of Statistics and Data Science, Nankai University · School of Mathematical Sciences, University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Statistics and Data Science, Southwest University of Finance and Economics
Chance-constrained programs (CCPs) optimize decisions under uncertainty by limiting the probability of constraint violation. Despite advances in traditional and learning-based approaches, optimizing non-convex or non-smooth objectives and adapting to different objectives under fixed chance constraints remain challenging. In this paper, we propose a Derivative-free Diffusion-based framework that Disentangles constraint modeling from objective optimization, termed \textbf{D3Opt}. We learn the chance-feasible structure once, independently of any particular objective, by training a risk-conditioned diffusion model solely on constraint-filtered decisions and freezing it as a reusable prior for post-specified objectives. At inference time, we propose an annealed, particle-based Feynman--Kac correction along the frozen reverse diffusion process to optimize post-specified objectives using only function evaluations. This enables derivative-free optimization of non-convex and non-smooth objectives without objective-specific retraining. We prove that the correction preserves feasibility when this property holds for the frozen prior, and derive an optimization-error bound separating learned-prior coverage, finite-particle approximation, and finite-temperature effects. Experiments on linear Gaussian CCPs, objective-transfer tasks, and chance-constrained economic dispatch demonstrate effective optimization across smooth and non-smooth objectives, including non-convex cases, and objective generalization under fixed chance constraints without retraining.
Figures & tables
Method
Repeat
FvalMean ↓
FvalStd ↓
FvalMedian ↓
SOC-CVX ( Grant et al., 2008 ) (Global Reference)
1
−0.6586
0
−0.6586
SAA-CVaR ( Nemirovski and Shapiro, 2007 )
100
−0.5893
0.0248
−0.5869
SAA-MIP ( Pagnoncelli et al., 2009 )
100
−0.6281
0.0157
−0.6318
SAA-PDCA ( Wang et al., 2023 )
100
−0.6389
0.0314
−0.6408
SAA-SNSCO ( Zhou et al., 2024 )
100
0.8051
3.4014
−0.6371
GGDOpt First-order ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
100
−0.6483
0.0051
−0.6488
Table 1: Comparison on the linear Gaussian chance-constrained problem equation 11 with n=8 and ρ=0.1 . Lower objective values are better.
Table 2: Objective-transfer results on ASQ and MW4 under the same linear Gaussian chance constraint. Each stochastic method is evaluated over 100 independent runs. Lower objective values and gaps are better.
Method
Cost Mean ↓
Cost Std ↓
Cost Best ↓
Mean Probability
DE + exact projection
104399.055
5.2×10−8
104399.055
0.9000
PWL-MILP + exact projection
104399.103
–
104399.103
0.9000
95% CI-SAA-DE
104400.092
≈0
104400.092
0.9003
GGDOpt ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) (Vanilla)
Not directly applicable
GGDOpt ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) + VPE adaptation
108821.619
1389.720
106540.523
0.9522
DiffOPT ( Kong et al., 2025 )
105678.450
163.418
105240.143
0.9210
Table 3: CCED-VPE-10 results at ρ=0.10 over 100 runs, except PWL-MILP (one solve). Mean Probability is the average analytic satisfaction probability.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Unit i
Pimin(MW)
Pimax(MW)
ai
bi
ci
di
ei
1
10
55
1000.403
40.5407
0.12951
33
0.0174
2
20
80
950.606
39.5804
0.10908
25
0.0178
3
47
120
900.705
36.5104
0.12511
32
0.0162
4
20
130
800.705
39.5104
0.12111
30
0.0168
5
50
160
756.799
38.5390
0.15247
30
0.0148
6
70
240
451.325
46.1592
0.10587
20
0.0163
Appendix
Table 4: Generator output limits and valve-point cost coefficients for CCED-VPE-10.
ρ
Method
Cost Mean ↓
Cost Std ↓
Cost Best ↓
Mean Probability
0.05
DE + exact projection
104689.448
0.000
104689.448
0.9500
PWL-MILP + exact projection
104689.483
–
104689.483
0.9500
95% CI-SAA-DE
104717.493
0.000
104717.493
0.9537
GGDOpt ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) + VPE adaptation
108951.188
1344.889
106546.719
0.9729
DiffOPT ( Kong et al., 2025 )
105986.707
166.335
105554.119
0.9500
D 3 Opt
105111.845
112.923
104831.074
0.9500
Appendix
Table 5: Risk-level adaptation on CCED-VPE-10 at ρ∈{0.05,0.15,0.20} . We report mean ± sample standard deviation and best cost over 100 runs, except PWL-MILP, which uses one solve per risk level. Bold costs indicate the best available learning-based results.
βmax
M
FvalMean ↓
FvalStd ↓
FvalBest ↓
10
64
105161.669
243.555
104691.425
10
256
104887.677
126.620
104593.105
10
512
104823.577
102.065
104582.444
10
1024
104759.778
90.430
104549.575
10
2048
104707.598
74.224
104521.263
0
512
107183.587
268.987
106146.715
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation experiments on CCED-VPE-10 at ρ=0.1 , varying particle count M∈{64,256,512,1024,2048} and terminal inverse temperature βmax∈{0,5,10,20,50} . Results are reported over 100 runs per setting.
ρ
Method
Power Mean ↓
Power Std ↓
Power Best ↓
P1/P2/P3
0.05
Sphere Bounding ( Wang et al., 2014 )
0.1374
–
–
(0.99;0.99;0.99)
Bernstein-type Inequality ( Wang et al., 2014 )
0.1260
–
–
(0.97;0.98;0.95)
GGDOpt First-order ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
0.127992
0.000205
0.127339
(0.99;0.98;0.95)
GGDOpt Second-order ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
0.127989
0.000206
0.127335
(0.98;0.98;0.95)
DiffOPT ( Kong et al., 2025 )
0.246433
0.000565
0.246110
(0.99;0.98;0.97)
D 3 Opt
0.127732
0.000209
0.127275
(0.97;0.95;0.96)
Appendix
Table 7: Robust waveform results with Nt=16 and K=3 . Learning-based power statistics are from 100 runs. The final column reports per-user chance-constraint satisfaction probabilities on the returned decisions, averaged across runs for learning-based methods. For a traditional baseline it refers to its single solution. Bold power values are the lowest mean and best among learning-based methods.
Chance-constrained stochastic programs (CCSPs) require solutions that satisfy uncertain constraints with high probability. Standard approaches either embed scenarios directly into optimization by considering sample average approximation (SAA)-based reformulations, growing prohibitively expensive and often failing to find feasible solutions; or employ conservative reformulations that guarantee feasibility but sacrifice objective quality by design. We propose ACCESS (Adaptive Chance-Constrained Exploration via Structured Sampling), a structured sampling framework that decouples optimization from feasibility evaluation. First, high-quality candidate solutions are generated by solving many inexpensive single-scenario subproblems, avoiding sampling directly in the constrained high-dimensional solution space. Second, feasibility is assessed separately via large-scale batched simulation over a massive number of scenarios, which is naturally amenable to GPU parallelism. That reduces the search from a high-dimensional solution space to a two-dimensional parameter space controlling conservatism and scenario diversity; while concentrating on candidates near the feasibility boundary, where high-quality feasible solutions lie. We also introduce a variant, ACCESS(δ), which provides certified feasibility guarantees with probability 1−δ. Experiments across three benchmark classes and five scenario distributions show that ACCESS matches or exceeds the best objective found by any method in nearly every setting, while ACCESS(δ) is empirically feasible on every instance. The conservative reformulations remain several percent worse in objective, and SAA is frequently infeasible while taking an order of magnitude longer on the harder benchmarks.
Justin Dumouchelle, Shunyu Yao, Beste Basciftci +1
We propose conformal predictive programming (CPP), a framework to solve chance constrained optimization problems, i.e., optimization problems with constraints that are functions of random variables. CPP utilizes samples from these random variables along with the quantile lemma - central to conformal prediction - to transform the chance constrained optimization problem into a deterministic problem with a quantile reformulation. CPP's main strength is an independent calibration step that provides a posteriori guarantees for the solution of this problem that are of conditional and marginal nature otherwise. These guarantees even apply in settings when assumptions required for obtaining standard a priori guarantees (e.g., in scenario optimization or sample average approximation) are unavailable, difficult to compute, or conservative. Another strength of CPP is that it can easily support different variants of conformal prediction which have been (or will be) proposed within the conformal prediction community. To illustrate this, we present robust CPP to deal with distribution shifts in the random variables and Mondrian CPP to deal with class conditional chance constraints. In a series of case studies, we show the validity of the aforementioned approaches, and illustrate the advantage of CPP as compared to scenario approach.
Yiqi Zhao, Xinyi Yu, Matteo Sesia +2
Thomas Lord Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California · Department of Data Sciences and Operations, University of Southern California · Automatic Control Laboratory, ETH Zürich
Safe reinforcement learning (RL) commonly enforces expected-cost constraints, but such expectation safety may fail to control the probability of rare high-cost trajectories. Chance-constrained MDPs (CCMDPs) impose a stronger probability-level requirement, but are widely viewed as harder because the chance constraint is nonconvex and depends on the full trajectory rather than a Bellman-linear expectation. In this paper, we reveal that this computational difficulty does not necessarily imply a higher statistical price. For tabular discounted CCMDPs with fixed bounded successor support and access to a certified planning oracle, we establish a model-based upper bound, with a matching lower bound up to logarithmic terms. Technically, our key idea is the Bellman distributional certificate, which constructs a Bellman recursion for constraint violation probabilities before policy selection. The certificate can be reused across candidate policies; combined with shared row-wise reverse-KL confidence sets, it gives a policy-uniform trajectory-KL transfer without a union bound over policies or time--budget Bellman tables. For stochastic policies, we give a model-free variance-reduced policy-gradient algorithm with a finite-sample expected KKT-residual guarantee and independent validation of every accepted policy. Numerical experiments on synthetic CCMDPs and an IEEE 14-bus energy storage control benchmark illustrate the safety and mechanism behavior of the proposed algorithms.
Chenbei Lu, Hongyu Yi
Cornell University AI for Science Institute Cornell University Ithaca, NY, USA · Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA