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




The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their thoughtful comments which substantially improved the paper. This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation Grant BSCGI0_157733 and the EPSRC Grants EP/M028240/1 and EP/M027856/1.


  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