Mathematical Methods of Operations Research

, Volume 65, Issue 1, pp 115–140

# On two-stage convex chance constrained problems

Original Article

## Abstract

In this paper we develop approximation algorithms for two-stage convex chance constrained problems. Nemirovski and Shapiro (Probab Randomized Methods Des Uncertain 2004) formulated this class of problems and proposed an ellipsoid-like iterative algorithm for the special case where the impact function f (x, h) is bi-affine. We show that this algorithm extends to bi-convex f (x, h) in a fairly straightforward fashion. The complexity of the solution algorithm as well as the quality of its output are functions of the radius r of the largest Euclidean ball that can be inscribed in the polytope defined by a random set of linear inequalities generated by the algorithm (Nemirovski and Shapiro in Probab Randomized Methods Des Uncertain 2004). Since the polytope determining r is random, computing r is difficult. Yet, the solution algorithm requires r as an input. In this paper we provide some guidance for selecting r. We show that the largest value of r is determined by the degree of robust feasibility of the two-stage chance constrained problem—the more robust the problem, the higher one can set the parameter r. Next, we formulate ambiguous two-stage chance constrained problems. In this formulation, the random variables defining the chance constraint are known to have a fixed distribution; however, the decision maker is only able to estimate this distribution to within some error. We construct an algorithm that solves the ambiguous two-stage chance constrained problem when the impact function f (x, h) is bi-affine and the extreme points of a certain “dual” polytope are known explicitly.

## Preview

### References

1. Anthony M, Biggs N (1992) Computational learning theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2. Atamtürk A, Zhang M (2005) Two-stage robust network flow and design for demand uncertainty. ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
3. Ben-Tal A, Goryashko A, Guslitzer E, Nemirovski A (2004) Adjustable robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Math Program 99(2, Ser. A):351–376
4. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (1998) Robust convex optimization. Math Oper Res 23(4):769–805
5. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (2001) Lectures on modern convex optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia
6. Bertsimas D, Sim M (2004) Robust conic optimization. Under review in Math ProgGoogle Scholar
7. Bukszár J (2001) Upper bounds for the probability of a union by multitrees. Adv Appl Probab 33:437–452
8. Calafiore G, Campi MC (2003) Uncertain convex programs: Randomized solutions and confidence levels. To appear in Math ProgGoogle Scholar
9. Calafiore G, Campi MC (2004) Decision making in an uncertain environment: the scenario-based optimization approach. Working paperGoogle Scholar
10. de Farias DP, Van Roy B (2001) On constraint sampling in the linear programming approach to approximate dynamic programming. To appear in Math Oper ResGoogle Scholar
11. Dentcheva D, Prékopa A, Ruszczyński A (2000) Concavity and efficient points of discrete distributions in probabilistic programming. Math Program 89(1, Ser. A):55–77
12. Dupačová J (2001) Stochastic programming: minimax approach. In Encyclopedia of Optimization. KluwerGoogle Scholar
13. Erdoğan E, Iyengar G (2004) Ambiguous chance constrained problems and robust optimization. To appear in Math ProgGoogle Scholar
14. Erdoğan E, Iyengar G (2005) Boosting, importance sampling, and convex chance constrained problem. ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
15. Freund RM, Vera JR (1999) Condition-based complexity of convex optimization in conic linear form via the ellipsoid algorithm. SIAM J Opt 10:155–176
16. Goldfarb D, Iyengar G (2003a) Robust convex quadratically constrained programs. Math Program Ser B. 97(3):495–515
17. Goldfarb D, Iyengar G (2003b) Robust portfolio selection problems. Math Oper Res 28(1):1–38
18. Hampel FR, Ronchetti EM, Rousseeuw PJ, Stahel WA (1986) Robust statistics: the approach based on influence functions. Wiley, London
19. Henrion R (2005) Structural properties of linear probabilistic constraints. Stochastic programming E-print series (SPEPS), 13Google Scholar
20. Kan Yuri (2002) Application of the quantile optimization to bond portfolio selection. In: Stochastic optimization techniques (Neubiberg/Munich, 2000), vol 513 of Lecture Notes in Econom and Math Systems, pp 285–308. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
21. Kearns MJ, Vazirani UV (1997) An introduction to computational learning theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
23. Lagoa CM, Li X, Sznaier M (2005) Probabilistically constrained linear programs and risk-adjusted controller design. SIAM J Optim 15:938–951
24. Lobo MS, Vandenberghe L, Boyd S, Lebret H (1998) Applications of second-order cone programming. Linear Algebra Appl 284(1-3):193–228
25. Nemirovski A (2003) On tractable approximations of randomly perturbed convex constraints. In Proc. 42nd IEEE Conf. Dec. Contr. (CDC), vol 3, pp 2419–2422Google Scholar
26. Nemirovski A, Shapiro A (2004) Scenario approximations of chance constraints. To appear in Probab Randomized Methods Des UncertainGoogle Scholar
27. Prekopa A (1995) Stochastic Programming. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
28. Rachev ST (1991) Probability metrics and the stability of stochastic models. Wiley, London
29. Renegar J (1994) Some perturbation theory for linear programming. Math Prog 65:73–91
30. Renegar J (1995) Linear programming, complexity theory and elementary functional analysis. Math Prog 70:279–351
31. Ruszczynski A, Shapiro A (eds) (2003) Stochastic programming. Handbook in Operations Research and Management Science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
32. Shapiro A Some recent developments in stochastic programming. ORB Newsletter, Available at http://www.ballarat.edu.au/ard/itms/CIAO/ORBNewsletter/issue13.shtml#11. 13, March 2004Google Scholar
33. Shapiro A, Ahmed S (2004) On a class of minimax stochastic programs. To appear in SIAM J OptGoogle Scholar
34. Shapiro A, Kleywegt AJ (2002) Minimax analysis of stochastic problems. Optim Methods Softw 17:523–542
35. Shor NZ (1977) Cut-off method with space extension in convex programming problems. Cybern 13:94–96Google Scholar
36. Vapnik VN (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
37. Žáčková J (1966) On minimax solutions of stochastic linear programs. Čas Pěst Mat 423–430Google Scholar