Uncertain convex programs: randomized solutions and confidence levels
Many engineering problems can be cast as optimization problems subject to convex constraints that are parameterized by an uncertainty or ‘instance’ parameter. Two main approaches are generally available to tackle constrained optimization problems in presence of uncertainty: robust optimization and chance-constrained optimization. Robust optimization is a deterministic paradigm where one seeks a solution which simultaneously satisfies all possible constraint instances. In chance-constrained optimization a probability distribution is instead assumed on the uncertain parameters, and the constraints are enforced up to a pre-specified level of probability. Unfortunately however, both approaches lead to computationally intractable problem formulations.
In this paper, we consider an alternative ‘randomized’ or ‘scenario’ approach for dealing with uncertainty in optimization, based on constraint sampling. In particular, we study the constrained optimization problem resulting by taking into account only a finite set of N constraints, chosen at random among the possible constraint instances of the uncertain problem. We show that the resulting randomized solution fails to satisfy only a small portion of the original constraints, provided that a sufficient number of samples is drawn. Our key result is to provide an efficient and explicit bound on the measure (probability or volume) of the original constraints that are possibly violated by the randomized solution. This volume rapidly decreases to zero as N is increased.
KeywordsConfidence Level Problem Formulation Engineering Problem Main Approach Uncertain Parameter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 7.Calafiore, G., Campi, M.C., El Ghaoui, L.: Identification of reliable predictor models for unknown systems: a data-consistency approach based on learning theory. In: Proceedings of IFAC 2002 World Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 2002Google Scholar
- 12.de Farias, D.P., Van Roy, B.: On constraint sampling in the linear programming approach to approximate dynamic programming. Technical Report Dept. Management Sci. Stanford University, 2001Google Scholar
- 16.Goberna, M.A., Lopez, M.A.: Linear Semi-Infinite Optimization. Wiley, 1998Google Scholar
- 17.Goemans, M.X., Williamson, D.P.: .878-approximation for MAX CUT and MAX 2SAT. Proc. 26th ACM Sym. Theor. Computing, 1994, pp. 422–431Google Scholar
- 18.Guestrin, C., Koller, D., Parr, R.: Efficient solution algorithms for factored MDPs. To appear in J. Artificial Intelligence Research, submitted 2002Google Scholar
- 21.Krishnan, K.: Linear programming (LP) approaches to semidefinite programming (SDP) problems. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ph.D. Thesis, Troy, New York, 2001Google Scholar
- 22.Lobo, M., Vandenberghe, L., Boyd, S., Lebret, H.: Applications of second-order cone programming. Linear Algebra and its Applications 284, 193–228 November 1998Google Scholar
- 23.Luebbecke, M.E., Desrosiers, J.: Selected topics in column generation. Les Cahiers de GERAD G-2002-64, 2002, pp. 193–228Google Scholar
- 25.Motwani, R., Raghavan, P.: Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995Google Scholar
- 27.Prékopa, A.: Stochastic Programming. Kluwer, 1995Google Scholar
- 28.Schuurmans, D., Patrascu, R.: Direct value-approximation for factored MDPs. Adv. Neural Infor. Processing (NIPS), 2001Google Scholar
- 34.Vidyasagar, M.: A theory of learning and generalization. Springer-Verlag, London, 1997Google Scholar