Relaxations and approximations of chance constraints under finite distributions

Full Length Paper Series B
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Optimization problems with constraints involving stochastic parameters that are required to be satisfied with a prespecified probability threshold arise in numerous applications. Such chance constrained optimization problems involve the dual challenges of stochasticity and nonconvexity. In the setting of a finite distribution of the stochastic parameters, an optimization problem with linear chance constraints can be formulated as a mixed integer linear program (MILP). The natural MILP formulation has a weak relaxation bound and is quite difficult to solve. In this paper, we review some recent results on improving the relaxation bounds and constructing approximate solutions for MILP formulations of chance constraints. We also discuss a recently introduced bicriteria approximation algorithm for covering type chance constrained problems. This algorithm uses a relaxation to construct a solution whose (constraint violation) risk level may be larger than the pre-specified threshold, but is within a constant factor of it, and whose objective value is also within a constant factor of the true optimal value. Finally, we present some new results that improve on the bicriteria approximation factors in the finite scenario setting and shed light on the effect of strong relaxations on the approximation ratios.

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C11 90C15 90C27 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation Award 1633196 and the Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-18-1-2075.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdi, A., Fukasawa, R.: On the mixing set with a knapsack constraint. Math. Program. 157(1), 191–217 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmed, S., Luedtke, J., Song, Y., Xie, W.: Nonanticipative duality, relaxations, and formulations for chance-constrained stochastic programs. Math. Program. 162(1–2), 51–81 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmed, S., Shapiro, A.: Solving chance-constrained stochastic programs via sampling and integer programming. Tutor. Oper. Res. (INFORMS) 10, 261–269 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander, G.J., Baptista, A.M.: A comparison of var and cvar constraints on portfolio selection with the mean-variance model. Manag. Sci. 50(9), 1261–1273 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atamtürk, A., Nemhauser, G.L., Savelsbergh, M.W.P.: The mixed vertex packing problem. Math. Program. 89, 35–53 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ben-Tal, A., El Ghaoui, L., Nemirovski, A.: Robust Optimization. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beraldi, P., Ruszczyński, A.: A branch and bound method for stochastic integer problems under probabilistic constraints. Optim. Methods Softw. 17(3), 359–382 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bienstock, D., Chertkov, M., Harnett, S.: Chance-constrained optimal power flow: risk-aware network control under uncertainty. SIAM Rev. 56(3), 461–495 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calafiore, G.C., Campi, M.C.: Uncertain convex programs: randomized solutions and confidence levels. Math. Program. 102, 25–46 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calafiore, G.C., Campi, M.C.: The scenario approach to robust control design. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 51(5), 742–753 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Symonds, G.H.: Cost horizons and certainty equivalents: an approach to stochastic programming of heating oil. Manag. Sci. 4(3), 235–263 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deng, Y., Shen, S.: Decomposition algorithm for optimizing multi-server appointment scheduling with chance constraints. Math. Program. 157, 245–276 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dentcheva, D., Prékopa, A., Ruszczynski, A.: Concavity and efficient points of discrete distributions in probabilistic programming. Math. Program. 89, 55–77 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goyal, V., Ravi, R.: Approximation algorithms for robust covering problems with chance constraints. http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=tepper (2008)
  15. 15.
    Goyal, V., Ravi, R.: A PTAS for the chance-constrained knapsack problem with random item sizes. Oper. Res. Lett. 38(3), 161–164 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guan, Y., Ahmed, S., Nemhauser, G.L.: Sequential pairing of mixed integer inequalities. Discrete Optim. 4, 21–39 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Günlük, O., Pochet, Y.: Mixing mixed-integer inequalities. Math. Program. 90, 429–457 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Küçükyavuz, S.: On mixing sets arising in chance-constrained programming. Math. Program. 132, 31–56 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lejeune, M.A., Margot, F.: Solving chance-constrained optimization problems with stochastic quadratic inequalities. Oper. Res. 64(4), 939–957 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, X., Kılınç-Karzan, F., Küçükyavuz, S.: On intersection of two mixing sets with applications to joint chance-constrained programs. Math. Program. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-018-1231-2
  21. 21.
    Liu, X., Küçükyavuz, S., Luedtke, J.: Decomposition algorithms for two-stage chance-constrained programs. Math. Program. 157(1), 219–243 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luedtke, J.: A branch-and-cut decomposition algorithm for solving chance-constrained mathematical programs with finite support. Math. Program. 146, 219–244 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luedtke, J., Ahmed, S.: A sample approximation approach for optimization with probabilistic constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 19(2), 674–699 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luedtke, J., Ahmed, S., Nemhauser, G.L.: An integer programming approach for linear programs with probabilistic constraints. Math. Program. 122, 247–272 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, A.J., Wolsey, L.A.: Tight formulations for some simple mixed integer programs and convex objective integer programs. Math. Program. 98, 73–88 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nemirovski, A.: On safe tractable approximations of chance constraints. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219, 707–718 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nemirovski, A., Shapiro, A.: Scenario approximation of chance constraints. In: Calafiore, G., Dabbene, F. (eds.) Probabilistic and Randomized Methods for Design Under Uncertainty, pp. 3–48. Springer, London (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nemirovski, A., Shapiro, A.: Convex approximations of chance constrained programs. SIAM J. Optim. 17(4), 969–996 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pagnoncelli, B.K., Ahmed, S., Shapiro, A.: Sample average approximation method for chance constrained programming: theory and applications. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 142(2), 399–416 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pagnoncelli, B.K., Ahmed, S., Shapiro, A.: Computational study of a chance constrained portfolio selection problem. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 142(2), 399–416 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pavlikov, K., Veremyev, A., Pasiliao, E.L.: Optimization of value-at-risk: computational aspects of mip formulations. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 69, 127–141 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pinter, J.: Deterministic approximations of probability inequalities. ZOR Methods Models Oper. Res. 33, 219–239 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prékopa, A.: Stochastic Programming. Springer, Berlin (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Qiu, F., Ahmed, S., Dey, S.S., Wolsey, L.A.: Covering linear programming with violations. INFORMS J. Comput. 26(3), 531–546 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rockafellar, R.T., Uryasev, S.: Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J. Risk 2, 21–42 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schneider, R.: Convex Bodies: The Brunn–Minkowski Theory, vol. 151. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D., Ruszczyński, A.: Lectures on Stochastic Programming: Modeling and Theory, vol. 9. SIAM, Philadelphia (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shiina, T.: Numerical solution technique for joint chance-constrained programming problem: an application to electric power capacity expansion. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn. 42(2), 128–140 (1999)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Snyder, L.V., Daskin, M.S: Models for reliable supply chain network design. In: Murray, A.T., Grubesic, T.H. (eds.) Critical Infrastructure, pp. 257–289. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Song, Y., Luedtke, J., Küçükyavuz, S.: Chance-constrained binary packing problems. INFORMS J. Comput. 26, 735–747 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Swamy, C.: Risk-averse stochastic optimization: probabilistically-constrained models and algorithms for black-box distributions. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. pp. 1627–1646. SIAM (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Takyi, A.K., Lence, B.J.: Surface water quality management using a multiple-realization chance constraint method. Water Resour. Res. 35(5), 1657–1670 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., Nair, A.: Vendor performance with supply risk: a chance-constrained dea approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 100(2), 212–222 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Ackooij, W., Zorgati, R., Henrion, R., Möller, A.: Chance constrained programming and its applications to energy management. In: Dritsas I. (ed.) Stochastic Optimization—Seeing the Optimal for the Uncertain. InTech (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Xie, W., Ahmed, S.: Bicriteria approximation of chance constrained covering problems. Submitted for publication, Preprint available at Optimization Online (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xie, W., Ahmed, S.: Distributionally robust chance constrained optimal power flow with renewables: a conic reformulation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 33, 1860 (2018). (To appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xie, W., Ahmed, S.: On quantile cuts and their closure for chance constrained optimization problems. Math. Program. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-017-1190-z
  48. 48.
    Zhang, M., Küçükyavuz, S., Goel, S.: A branch-and-cut method for dynamic decision making under joint chance constraints. Manag. Sci. 60(5), 1317–1333 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhao, M., Huang, K., Zeng, B.: A polyhedral study on chance constrained program with random right-hand side. Math. Program. 166(1–2), 19–64 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and Mathematical Optimization Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations