Advertisement

Specifying and Validating Probabilistic Inputs for Prescriptive Models of Decision Making over Time

  • Sarah McAllister RyanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)

Abstract

Optimization models for making decisions over time in uncertain environments rely on probabilistic inputs, such as scenario trees for stochastic mathematical programs. The quality of model outputs, i.e., the solutions obtained, depends on the quality of these inputs. However, solution quality is rarely assessed in a rigorous way. The connection between validation of model inputs and quality of the resulting solution is not immediate. This chapter discusses some efforts to formulate realistic probabilistic inputs and subsequently validate them in terms of the quality of solutions they produce. These include formulating probabilistic models based on statistical descriptions understandable to decision makers; conducting statistical tests to assess the validity of stochastic process models and their discretization; and conducting re-enactments to assess the quality of the formulation in terms of solution performance against observational data. Studies of long-term capacity expansion in service industries, including electric power, and short-term scheduling of thermal electricity generating units provide motivation and illustrations. The chapter concludes with directions for future research.

References

  1. Bean JC, Higle J, Smith RL (1992) Capacity expansion under stochastic demands. Oper Res 40:S210–S216zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Carøe CC, Schultz R (1999) Dual decomposition in stochastic integer programming. Oper Res Lett 24:37–45MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Casimir RJ (1990) The newsboy and the flower-girl. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 18(4):395–398Google Scholar
  4. Cheung K, Gade D, Ryan S, Silva-Monroy C, Watson JP, Wets R, Woodruff D (2015) Toward scalable stochastic unit commitment - part 2: Assessing solver performance. Energy Syst 6(3):417–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-015-0148-6 Google Scholar
  5. Dupac̆ová J, Gröwe-Kuska N, Römisch W (2003) Scenario reduction in stochastic programming. Math Program 95(3):493–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-002-0331-0
  6. Feng Y, Ryan SM (2013) Scenario construction and reduction applied to stochastic power generation expansion planning. Comput Oper Res 40(1):9–23zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Feng Y, Ryan SM (2016) Day-ahead hourly electricity load modeling by functional regression. Appl Energy 170:455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.118 Google Scholar
  8. Feng Y, Rios I, Ryan SM, Spurkel K, Watson JP, Wets RJB, Woodruff DL (2015) Toward scalable stochastic unit commitment - part 1: Load scenario generation. Energy Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-015-0146-8 Google Scholar
  9. Freidenfelds J (1981) Capacity expansion: Analysis of simple models with applications. North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Gade D, Hackebeil G, Ryan SM, Watson JP, Wets RJB, Woodruff DL (2016) Obtaining lower bounds from the progressive hedging algorithm for stochastic mixed-integer programs. Math Program Ser B 157(1):47–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-016-1000-z MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Gneiting T, Katzfuss M (2014) Probabilistic forecasting. Annu Rev Stat Appl 1:125–151.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-062713-085831 Google Scholar
  12. Gneiting T, Raftery AE (2007) Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. J Am Stat Assoc 102(477):359–378. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo G, Hackebeil G, Ryan SM, Watson JP, Woodruff DL (2015) Integration of progressive hedging and dual decomposition in stochastic integer programs. Oper Res Lett 43(3):311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2015.03.008 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo GC, Ryan SM (2017) Progressive hedging lower bounds for time consistent risk-averse multistage stochastic mixed-integer programs. URL https://works.bepress.com/sarah_m_ryan/93/
  15. Hart WE, Laird CD, Watson JP, Woodruff DL, Hackebeil GA, Nicholson BL, Siirola JD (2017) Pyomo – optimization modeling in Python, 2nd edn. SpringerzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Heitsch H, Römisch W (2003) Scenario reduction algorithms in stochastic programming. Comput Optim Appl 24:187–206MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Heitsch H, Römisch W (2007) A note on scenario reduction for two-stage stochastic programs. Oper Res Lett 35(6):731–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2006.12.008 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Jin S, Ryan S, Watson JP, Woodruff D (2011) Modeling and solving a large-scale generation expansion planning problem under uncertainty. Energy Syst 2:209–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-011-0042-9. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12667-011-0042-9 Google Scholar
  19. Jin S, Botterud A, Ryan SM (2014) Temporal vs. stochastic granularity in thermal generation capacity planning with wind power. IEEE Trans Power Syst 29(5):2033–2041.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2299760 Google Scholar
  20. Manne AS (1961) Capacity expansion and probabilistic growth. Econometrica 29(4):632–649MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Marathe R, Ryan SM (2005) On the validity of the geometric Brownian motion assumption. Eng Econ 50:159–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00137910590949904 Google Scholar
  22. Marathe RR, Ryan SM (2009) Capacity expansion under a service level constraint for uncertain demand with lead times. Nav Res Logist 56(3):250–263MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. McAllister C, Ryan SM (2000) Relative risk characteristics of rolling horizon hedging heuristics for capacity expansion. Eng Econ 45(2):115–128Google Scholar
  24. Muñoz FD, Hobbs BF, Ho JL, Kasina S (2014) An engineering-economic approach to transmission planning under market and regulatory uncertainties: WECC case study. IEEE Trans Power Syst 29(1):307–317Google Scholar
  25. Nitsche S, Silva-Monroy C, Staid A, Watson JP, Winner S, Woodruff D (2017) Improving wind power prediction intervals using vendor-supplied probabilistic forecast information. In: IEEE Power & Energy Society General MeetingGoogle Scholar
  26. Pflug GC (2001) Scenario tree generation for multiperiod financial optimization by optimal discretization. Math Program Ser B 89:251–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101070000202 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Pflug GC, Pichler A (2014) Multistage stochastic optimization. SpringerzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinson P, Girard R (2012) Evaluating the quality of scenarios of short-term wind power generation. Appl Energy 96:12–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.004 Google Scholar
  29. Quelhas A, McCalley JD (2007) A multiperiod generalized network flow model of the U.S. integrated energy system: Part II simulation results. IEEE Trans Power Syst 22(2):837–844Google Scholar
  30. Quelhas A, Gil E, McCalley JD, Ryan SM (2007) A multiperiod generalized network flow model of the U.S. integrated energy system: Part I – model description. IEEE Trans Power Syst 22(2):829–836Google Scholar
  31. Rockafellar RT, Wets RJB (1991) Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty. Math Oper Res 16(1):119–147MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross S (1999) An introduction to mathematical finance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Royset JO, Wets RJB (2014) From data to assessments and decisions: Epi-spline technology. INFORMS Tutor Oper Res, 27–53.  https://doi.org/10.1287/educ.2014.0126 Google Scholar
  34. Ryan SM (1988) Degeneracy in discrete infinite horizon optimization. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan SM (1998) Forecast frequency in rolling horizon hedging heuristics for capacity expansion. Eur J Oper Res 109(3):550–558Google Scholar
  36. Ryan SM (2003) Capacity expansion with lead times and correlated random demand. Nav Res Logist 50(2):167–183.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.10055 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan SM (2004) Capacity expansion for random exponential demand growth with lead times. Manag Sci 50(6):740–748.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0187 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan SM, Bean JC (1989) Degeneracy in infinite horizon optimization. Math Program 43:305–316MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan SM, Bean JC, Smith RL (1992) A tie-breaking rule for discrete infinite horizon optimization. Oper Res 40(Supplement 1):S117–S126MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan SM, McCalley JD, Woodruff D (2011) Long term resource planning for electric power systems under uncertainty. In: Eto JH, Thomas RJ (eds) Computational needs for the next generation electric grid, U.S. Department of Energy, pp 6–1–41. URL http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FINAL_CompNeeds_Proceedings2011.pdf
  41. Sarı D, Ryan SM (2016). MTDrh: Mass transportation distance rank histogram. URL https://cran.r-project.org/package=MTDrh
  42. Sarı D, Ryan SM (2017) Statistical reliability of wind power scenarios and stochastic unit commitment cost. Energy Syst https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-017-0255-7 Google Scholar
  43. Sarı D, Lee Y, Ryan S, Woodruff D (2016) Statistical metrics for assessing the quality of wind power scenarios for stochastic unit commitment. Wind Energy 19:873–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1872 Google Scholar
  44. Sarı Ay D, Ryan SM (2018) Observational data-based quality assessment of scenario generation for stochastic programs. Comput Manag Sci https://works.bepress.com/sarah_m_ryan/94/
  45. Staid A, Watson JP, Wets RJB, Woodruff DL (2017) Generating short-term probabilistic wind power scenarios via nonparametric forecast error density estimators. Wind Energy 20(12):1911–1925. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2129 Google Scholar
  46. Székely GJ, Rizzo ML (2013) Energy statistics: A class of statistics based on distances. J Statist Plann Inference 143(8):1249–1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2013.03.018 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang Y (2010) Scenario reduction heuristics for a rolling stochastic programming simulation of bulk energy flows with uncertain fuel costs. Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, URL http://search.proquest.com/docview/848503163 Google Scholar
  48. Wang Y, Ryan SM (2010) Effects of uncertain fuel costs on optimal energy flows in the U.S. Energy Syst 1:209–243Google Scholar
  49. Wilks DS (2004) The minimum spanning tree histogram as a verification tool for multidimensional ensemble forecasts. Mon Weather Rev 132:1329–1340Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations