Abstract
In Chapter 3 we introduced integrated chance constraints (ICCs) as a modeling tool for here-and-now stochastic programming problems; see (3.28). In the present chapter we analyze the mathematical properties of this new concept in some detail. Let us review its rationale. As indicated in Section 3.2, if in the constraints of a linear programming problem random coefficients occur with unknown realizations, then in order to have a unequivocal meaning of “feasibility” one has to make additional specifications. There are two well-known modeling techniques for this: in chance-constrained programming (CCP) the probability of infeasibility is restricted, and in stochastic programming with recourse (SPR) the effects of infeasibility are penalized. For convenience, we here consider “penalty cost” models as recourse models, see Remark 3.6. Several authors [12,10,11,3,2] established certain equivalences between CCP and SPR. Their results are not completely convincing, however; for example, CCP problems may be nonconvex whereas SPR problems are always convex [5 page 90]. Even if mathematical equivalence can be established there still are differences between CCP and SPR models which might be important for the model builder.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M.A.H. Dempster (1968). On stochastic programming: I. Static linear programming under risk. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 21, 304–343.
S.J. Garstka (1980). The economic equivalence of several stochastic programming models. M.A.H. Dempster (ed.). Stochastic Programmingy, Academic Press, New York-San Francisco-London, 83–91.
S.J. Garstka, R.J.-B. Wets (1974). On decision rules in stochastic programming. Math. Programming 7, 117–143.
A.J. Hogan, J.G. Morris, H.E. Thompson (1981). Decision problems under risk and chance-constrained programming: Dilemmas in the transition. Management Sci. 27, 698–716.
P. Kall (1976). Stochastic Linear Programming, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.
P. Kall, D.J. Stoyan (1982). Solving stochastic programming problems with recourse including error bounds. Math. Operations-forsch. Statist. Ser. Optim. 13, 431–447.
A. Prekopa (1973). Contributions to the theory of stochastic programming. Math. Programming 4, 202–221.
A. Prekopa (1974). Programming under probabilistic constraints with a random technology matrix. Math. Operationsforsch. Statist. Ser. Optim. 5, 109–116.
R.T. Rockafellar (1970). Convex Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
G.H. Symonds (1968). Chance-constrained equivalents of some stochastic programming problems. Oper. Res. 16, 1152–1159.
D.W. Walkup, R.J.-B. Wets (1970). Stochastic programs with recourse: Special forms. H. Kuhn (ed.). Proceedings of the Princeton Symposium on Mathematical Programming, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 139–161.
A.C. Williams (1965). On stochastic linear programming. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 13, 927–940.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klein Haneveld, W.K. (1986). On Integrated Chance Constraints. In: Duality in Stochastic Linear and Dynamic Programming. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 274. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-51697-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-51697-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-16793-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-51697-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive