Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variance reduction for sequential sampling in stochastic programming

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the variance reduction techniques Antithetic Variates (AV) and Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) when used for sequential sampling in stochastic programming and presents a comparative computational study. It shows conditions under which the sequential sampling with AV and LHS satisfy finite stopping guarantees and are asymptotically valid, discussing LHS in detail. It computationally compares their use in both the sequential and non-sequential settings through a collection of two-stage stochastic linear programs with different characteristics. The numerical results show that while both AV and LHS can be preferable to random sampling in either setting, LHS typically dominates in the non-sequential setting while performing well sequentially and AV gains some advantages in the sequential setting. These results imply that, given the ease of implementation of these variance reduction techniques, armed with the same theoretical properties and improved empirical performance relative to random sampling, AV and LHS sequential procedures present attractive alternatives in practice for a class of stochastic programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, T. G., Jensen, P. A., & Morton, D. P. (1999). Response surface analysis of two-stage stochastic linear programming with recourse. Naval Research Logistics, 46(7), 753–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrera, J., Homem-de Mello, T., Moreno, E., Pagnoncelli, B. K., & Canessa, G. (2016). Chance-constrained problems and rare events: An importance sampling approach. Mathematical Programming, 157(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassok, Y., Anupindi, R., & Akella, R. (1999). Single-period multiproduct inventory models with substitution. Operations Research, 47(4), 632–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battocchio, P., Menoncin, F., & Scaillet, O. (Jul 2007). Optimal asset allocation for pension funds under mortality risk during the accumulation and decumulation phases. Annals of Operations Research, 152(1), 141–165.

  • Bayraksan, G. (2018). An improved averaged two-replication procedure with Latin hypercube sampling. Operations Research Letters, 46(2), 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraksan, G., & Morton, D. P. (2006). Assessing solution quality in stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 108, 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraksan, G., & Morton, D. P. (2011). A sequential sampling procedure for stochastic programming. Operations Research, 59, 898–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraksan, G., & Pierre-Louis, P. (2012). Fixed-width sequential stopping rules for a class of stochastic programs. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 22, 1518–1548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biller, B., & Ghosh, S. (2006). Multivariate input processes. In S. G. Henderson & B. L. Nelson (Eds.), Simulation, volume 13 of handbooks in operations research and management science, chapter 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Lim, C. H., Qian, P. Z., Linderoth, J., & Wright, S. J. (2014). Validating sample average approximation solutions with negatively dependent batches. Technical report. arXiv:1404.7208.

  • Choi, S., Ruszczyński, A., & Zhao, Y. (2011). A multiproduct risk-averse newsvendor with law-invariant coherent measures of risk. Operations Research, 59(2), 346–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, Y. S., & Robbins, H. (1965). On the asymptotic theory of fixed-width sequential confidence intervals for the mean. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 457–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dantzig, G. B., & Glynn, P. W. (1990). Parallel processors for planning under uncertainty. Annals of Operations Research, 22, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Matos, V. L., Morton, D. P., & Finardi, E. C. (2017). Assessing policy quality in a multistage stochastic program for long-term hydrothermal scheduling. Annals of Operations Research, 253, 713–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, C. J., & Birge, J. R. (1995). An upper bound on the network recourse function. Working Paper, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan.

  • Drew, S. (2007). Quasi-Monte Carlo methods for stochastic programming. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University.

  • Drew, S., & Homem-de-Mello, T. (2006). Quasi-Monte Carlo strategies for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 2006 winter simulation conference (pp. 774–782).

  • Drew, S., & Homem-de-Mello, T. (2012). Some large deviations results for Latin hypercube sampling. Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, 14(2), 203–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumskis, V., & Sakalauskas, L. (2016). Nonlinear stochastic programming involving CVaR in the objective and constraints. Informatica, 26(4), 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupac̆ová, J., Gaivoronski, A., Kos, Z., & Szántai, T. (1991). Stochastic programming in water management: A case study and a comparison of solution techniques. European Journal of Operational Research, 52(1), 28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etore, P., Fort, G., Jourdain, B., & Moulines, E. (2011). On adaptive stratification. Annals of Operations Research, 189(1), 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freimer, M. B., Linderoth, J. T., & Thomas, D. J. (2012). The impact of sampling methods on bias and variance in stochastic linear programs. Computational Optimization and Applications, 51(1), 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, M. C. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of simulation optimization, international series in operations research and management science. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, P. W., & Whitt, W. (1992). The asymptotic validity of sequential stopping rules for stochastic simulations. The Annals of Applied Probability, 2, 180–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, P. W., & Infanger, G. (2013). Simulation-based confidence bounds for two-stage stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 138(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. M., Hoffman, K. L., & Yarrow, L.-A. (1995). Using integer programming techniques for the solution of an experimental design problem. Annals of Operations Research, 58(3), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitsch, H., Leövey, H., & Römisch, W. (2016). Are Quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms efficient for two-stage stochastic programs? Computational Optimization and Applications, 65, 567–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higle, J. L. (1998). Variance reduction and objective function evaluation in stochastic linear programs. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 10, 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higle, J. L., & Sen, S. (1991). Statistical verification of optimality conditions for stochastic programs with recourse. Annals of Operations Research, 30, 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higle, J. L., & Sen, S. (1996a). Stochastic decomposition: A statistical method for large scale stochastic linear programming. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Higle, J. L., & Sen, S. (1996b). Duality and statistical tests of optimality for two stage stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 75, 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffding, W. (1963). Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homem-de-Mello, T. (2008). On rates of convergence for stochastic optimization problems under non-i.i.d. sampling. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 19, 524–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homem-de-Mello, T., & Bayraksan, G. (2014). Monte Carlo sampling-based methods for stochastic optimization. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science, 19(1), 56–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homem-de-Mello, T., & Bayraksan, G. (2015). Stochastic constraints and variance reduction techniques. In M. C. Fu (Ed.), Handbook of simulation optimization (pp. 245–276). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Homem-de-Mello, T., de Matos, V. L., & Finardi, E. C. (2011). Sampling strategies and stopping criteria for stochastic dual dynamic programming: A case study in long-term hydrothermal scheduling. Energy Systems, 2, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Infanger, G. (1992). Monte Carlo (importance) sampling within a Benders decomposition algorithm for stochastic linear programs. Annals of Operations Research, 39, 69–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, X., Fu, M. C., & Xiong, X. (2003). Probabilistic error bounds for simulation quantile estimators. Management Science, 49(2), 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaut, M., & Wallace, S. W. (2007). Evaluation of scenario-generation methods for stochastic programming. Pacific Journal of Optimization, 3(2), 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, B. D., & Bayraksan, G. (2010). Scheduling jobs sharing multiple resources under uncertainty: A stochastic programming approach. IIE Transactions, 42, 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kéri, G., & Szántai, T. (Nov 2012). Combinatorial results on the fitting problems of the multivariate gamma distribution introduced by Prékopa and Szántai. Annals of Operations Research, 200(1), 265–278.

  • Kleywegt, A., Shapiro, A., & Homem-de-Mello, T. (2002). The sample average approximation method for stochastic discrete optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 12(2), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivu, M. (2005). Variance reduction in sample approximations of stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 103(3), 463–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozmík, V., & Morton, D. P. (2015). Evaluating policies in risk-averse multi-stage stochastic programming. Mathematical Programming, 152(1), 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, G., Nemirovski, A., & Shapiro, A. (2012). Validation analysis of mirror descent stochastic approximation method. Mathematical Programming, 134(2), 425–458. ISSN 0025-5610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderoth, J., Shapiro, A., & Wright, S. (2006). The empirical behavior of sampling methods for stochastic programming. Annals of Operations Research, 142(1), 215–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loh, W. L. (1996). On Latin hypercube sampling. The Annals of Statistics, 24(5), 2058–2080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, D. K., Bayraksan, G. (2015). Overlapping batches for the assessment of solution quality in stochastic programs. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 23(3), Article No. 20.

  • Mak, W. K., Morton, D. P., & Wood, R. K. (1999). Monte Carlo bounding techniques for determining solution quality in stochastic programs. Operations Research Letters, 24, 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, M., & Nishimura, T. (1998). Mersenne twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 8(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., & Conover, W. J. (1979). Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 21(2), 239–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, D. P. (1998). Stopping rules for a class of sampling-based stochastic programming algorithms. Operations Research, 24, 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, J. M., & Ruszczyński, A. (1995). A new scenario decomposition method for large scale stochastic optimization. Operations Research, 43, 477–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadas, A. (1969). An extension of a theorem of Chow and Robbins on sequential confidence intervals for the mean. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40, 667–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norkin, V. I., Pflug, G. C., & Ruszczyński, A. (1998). A branch and bound method for stochastic global optimization. Mathematical Programming, 83, 425–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Supercomputer Center. (1987). http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73. Accessed 20 Dec 2020.

  • Owen, A. B. (1992). A central limit theorem for Latin hypercube sampling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 54, 541–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, A. B. (1998). Latin supercube sampling for very high-dimensional simulations. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), 8(1), 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packham, N., & Schmidt, W. M. (2010). Latin hypercube sampling with dependence and applications in finance. The Journal of Computational Finance, 13(3), 81–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennanen, T., & Koivu, M. (2005). Epi-convergent discretizations of stochastic programs via integration quadratures. Numerische Mathematik, 100, 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre-Louis, P., Morton, D. P., & Bayraksan, G. (2011). A combined deterministic and sampling-based sequential bounding method for stochastic programming. In Proceedings of the 2011 winter simulation conference (pp. 4172–4183). New Jersey: Piscataway.

  • Prékopa, A., & Szántai, T. (1978). A new multivariate gamma distribution and its fitting to empirical streamflow data. Water Resources Research, 14(1), 19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royset, J. (2012). Optimality functions in stochastic programming. Mathematical Programming, 135, 293–321. ISSN 0025-5610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, R. Y., Samordnitsky, G., & Shaked, M. (1985). Antithetic variates, mutlivariate dependence and simulation of stochastic systems. Management Science, 311(1), 66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruszczyński, A. (1986). A regularized decomposition method for minimizing a sum of polyhedral functions. Mathematical Programming, 35(3), 309–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruszczyński, A., & Świetanowski, A. (1997). Accelerating the regularized decomposition method for two stage stochastic linear problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 101(2), 328–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakalauskas, L. (2002). Nonlinear stochastic programming by Monte-Carlo estimators. European Journal of Operational Research, 137(3), 558–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Liu, Y. (2016). Mitigating uncertainty via compromise decisions in two-stage stochastic linear programming: Variance reduction. Operations Research, 64(6), 1422–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., Doverspike, R. D., & Cosares, S. (1994). Network planning with random demand. Telecommunication Systems, 3, 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. (2003). Monte Carlo sampling methods. In A. Ruszczyński & A. Shapiro (Eds.), Handbooks in operations research and management science, stochastic programming (Vol. 10, pp. 353–425). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., & Homem-de-Mello, T. (1998). A simulation-based approach to two-stage stochastic programming with recourse. Mathematical Programming, 81, 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., & Homem-de-Mello, T. (2000). On the rate of convergence of optimal solutions of Monte Carlo approximations of stochastic programs. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 11, 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., Homem-de-Mello, T., & Kim, J. C. (2002). Conditioning of convex piecewise linear stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 94, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D., & Ruszczyński, A. (2009). Stochastic programming: Modeling and theory. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. (1987). Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling. Technometrics, 29(2), 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockbridge, R. (2013). Bias and variance reduction in assessing solution quality for stochastic programs. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Arizona.

  • Stockbridge, R., & Bayraksan, G. (2013). A probability metrics approach for reducing the bias of optimality gap estimators in two-stage stochastic linear programming. Mathematical Programming, 142(1–2), 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockbridge, R., & Bayraksan, G. (2016). Variance reduction in Monte Carlo sampling-based optimality gap estimators for two-stage stochastic linear programming. Computational Optimization and Applications, 64(2), 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., & Sioshansi, R. (2017). A two-stage stochastic optimization model for scheduling electric vehicle charging loads to relieve distribution-system constraints. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 102, 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xi, B., Liu, Z., Raghavachari, M., Xia, C. H., & Zhang, L. (2004). A smart hill-climbing algorithm for application server configuration. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on world wide web (pp. 287–296). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Zolan, A. J., Hasenbein, J. J., & Morton, D. P. (2017). Optimizing the design of a Latin hypercube sampling estimator. In Proceedings of the 2017 winter simulation conference (WSC) (pp. 1832–1843).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Andrzej Ruszczyński and Artur Świetanowski for access to their regularized decomposition code, which was used to solve the test problems. The authors are also grateful to an anonymous referee whose insightful comments led to a significantly improved paper. Allocation of computer time from the Ohio Supercomputer Center (1987) is also gratefully acknowledged. This research has been partially funded by the National Science Foundation through grant CMMI-1345626 and the Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Applied Mathematics program under Contract Number DE-AC02-06CH11357.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrated Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Jangho Park & Güzin Bayraksan

  2. Birmingham, MI, USA

    Rebecca Stockbridge

Authors
  1. Jangho Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Stockbridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Güzin Bayraksan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Güzin Bayraksan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, J., Stockbridge, R. & Bayraksan, G. Variance reduction for sequential sampling in stochastic programming. Ann Oper Res 300, 171–204 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03908-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03908-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation