Mathematical Methods of Operations Research

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 265–277 | Cite as

On relations between chance constrained and penalty function problems under discrete distributions

  • Martin Branda
Original Article


We extend the theory of penalty functions to stochastic programming problems with nonlinear inequality constraints dependent on a random vector with known distribution. We show that the problems with penalty objective, penalty constraints and chance constraints are asymptotically equivalent under discretely distributed random parts. This is a complementary result to Branda (Kybernetika 48(1):105–122, 2012a), Branda and Dupačová (Ann Oper Res 193(1):3–19, 2012), and Ermoliev et al. (Ann Oper Res 99:207–225, 2000) where the theorems were restricted to continuous distributions only. We propose bounds on optimal values and convergence of optimal solutions. Moreover, we apply exact penalization under modified calmness property to improve the results.


Penalty functions Chance constraints Asymptotic equivalence Discrete distribution Exact penalization Calmness 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)




The research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation under the Grant (P402/12/G097).


  1. Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM (2006) Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms, 3rd edn. Wiley, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branda M (2010) Solving real-life portfolio problem using stochastic programming and Monte-Carlo techniques. In: Houda M, Friebelová J (eds) Proceedings of the 28th international conference on mathematical methods in economics 2010. University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  3. Branda M (2012a) Chance constrained problems: penalty reformulation and performance of sample approximation technique. Kybernetika 48(1):105–122Google Scholar
  4. Branda M (2012b) Sample approximation technique for mixed-integer stochastic programming problems with several chance constraints. Oper Res Lett 40(3):207–211Google Scholar
  5. Branda M (2012c) Stochastic programming problems with generalized integrated chance constraints. Optim J Math Program Oper Res 61(3):949–968Google Scholar
  6. Branda M, Dupačová J (2012) Approximations and contamination bounds for probabilistic programs. Ann Oper Res 193(1):3–19MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke JV (1991a) Calmness and exact penalization. SIAM J Control Optim 29:493–497Google Scholar
  8. Burke JV (1991b) An exact penalization viewpoint of constrained optimization. SIAM J Control Optim 29:968–998Google Scholar
  9. D’Ambrosio C, Lodi A (2011) Mixed integer nonlinear programming tools: a practical overview. 4OR Q J Oper Res 9:329–349MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke FH (1983) Optimization and nonsmooth analysis. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupačová J, Gaivoronski A, Kos Z, Szantai T (1991) Stochastic programming in water management: a case study and a comparison of solution techniques. Eur J Oper Res 52:28–44zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ermoliev YM, Ermolieva TY, Macdonald GJ, Norkin VI (2000) Stochastic optimization of insurance portfolios for managing exposure to catastrophic risks. Ann Oper Res 99:207–225MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klein Haneveld WK (1986) Duality in stochastic linear and dynamic programming. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, vol 274. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein Haneveld WK, van der Vlerk M (2006) Integrated chance constraints: reduced forms and an algorithm. Comput Manag Sci 3(4):245–269MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoheisel T, Kanzowa Ch, Outrata JV (2010) Exact penalty results for mathematical programs with vanishing constraints. Nonlinear Anal 72:2514–2526MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koch T, Ralphs T, Shinano Y (2012) Could we use a million cores to solve an integer program? Math Methods Oper Res 76(1):67–93MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luedtke J, Ahmed S (2008) A sample approximation approach for optimization with probabilistic constraints. SIAM J Optim 19:674–699MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Meskarian R, Xu H, Fliege J (2012) Numerical methods for stochastic programs with second order dominance constraints with applications to portfolio optimization. Eur J Oper Res 216:376–385MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prékopa A (1995) Stochastic programming. Kluwer Dordrecht and Académiai Kiad, BudapestCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prékopa A (2003) Probabilistic programming. In: Ruszczynski A, Shapiro A (eds) Stochastic programming handbook in operations research and management science, vol 10. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 483–554Google Scholar
  22. Raike WM (1970) Dissection methods for solutions in chance constrained programming problems under discrete distributions. Manag Sci 16(11):708–715MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rockafellar RT, Wets R (2004) Variational analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Shapiro A (2003) Monte Carlo sampling methods. In: Ruszczynski A, Shapiro A (eds) Stochastic programming, handbook in operations research and management science, vol 10. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 483–554Google Scholar
  25. Xu H, Zhang D (2012) Monte Carlo methods for mean-risk optimization and portfolio selection. Comput Manag Sci 9(1):3–29MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang W, Ahmed S (2008) Sample average approximation of expected value constrained stochastic programs. Oper Res Lett 36(5):515–519MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Žampachová E, Mrázek M (2010) Stochastic optimization in beam design and its reliability check. In: MENDEL 2010—16th international conference on soft computing. Mendel Journal series. Brno, FME BUT, pp 405–410Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations