Mathematical Programming

, Volume 159, Issue 1–2, pp 557–569 | Cite as

A comment on “computational complexity of stochastic programming problems”

  • Grani A. Hanasusanto
  • Daniel Kuhn
  • Wolfram Wiesemann
Short Communication Series A


Although stochastic programming problems were always believed to be computationally challenging, this perception has only recently received a theoretical justification by the seminal work of Dyer and Stougie (Math Program A 106(3):423–432, 2006). Amongst others, that paper argues that linear two-stage stochastic programs with fixed recourse are #P-hard even if the random problem data is governed by independent uniform distributions. We show that Dyer and Stougie’s proof is not correct, and we offer a correction which establishes the stronger result that even the approximate solution of such problems is #P-hard for a sufficiently high accuracy. We also provide new results which indicate that linear two-stage stochastic programs with random recourse seem even more challenging to solve.


Stochastic programming Complexity theory Two-stage problems 

Mathematics Subject Classification



  1. 1.
    Balakrishnan, N., Nevzorov, V.B.: A Primer on Statistical Distributions. Wiley, Hoboken, NY (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birge, J.R., Louveaux, F.: Introduction to Stochastic Programming Springer. Series in Operations Research. Springer, Berlin (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brightwell, G., Winkler, P.: Counting linear extensions. Order 8(3), 225–242 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dyer, M., Stougie, L.: Computational complexity of stochastic programming problems. Math. Program. A 106(3), 423–432 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dyer, M.E., Frieze, A.M.: On the complexity of computing the volume of a polyhedron. SIAM J. Comput. 17(5), 967–974 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gautschi, W.: On inverses of Vandermonde and confluent Vandermonde matrices. Numer. Math. 4(1), 117–123 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leövey, H., Römisch, W.: Quasi-Monte Carlo methods for linear two-stage stochastic programming problems. Math. Program. 151(1), 315–345 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prékopa, A.: Stochastic Programming. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruszczyński, A., Shapiro, A. (eds.): Stochastic Programming, Volume 10 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shapiro, A., Nemirovski, A.: On complexity of stochastic programming problems. In: Jeyakumar, V., Rubinov, A.M. (eds.) Continuous Optimization: Current Trends and Applications, pp. 111–144. Springer, Berlin (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sloan, I.H., Woźniakowski, H.: When are Quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms efficient for high dimensional integrals? J. Complex. 14(1), 1–33 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Mathematical Optimization Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grani A. Hanasusanto
    • 1
  • Daniel Kuhn
    • 1
  • Wolfram Wiesemann
    • 2
  1. 1.Risk Analytics and Optimization ChairÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Imperial College Business SchoolImperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations