1 / 36

Computational methods for processing two stage stochastic programming problems

Explore computational methods like L-shaped Method, Stochastic Decomposition, and Level Method for solving two-stage stochastic programming problems. Compare theoretical performance and test models under varied parameters for solver comparisons.

jmayhew
Download Presentation

Computational methods for processing two stage stochastic programming problems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computational methods for processing two stage stochastic programming problems Frank Ellison Csaba Fabian Gautam Mitra Department of Mathematical Sciences Brunel University Uxbridge Middlesex UB8 3PH

  2. OUTLINE • Overview of 2-stage SP methods • Diagrammatic Presentation of Level Method • Theoretical Comparisons between Methods • Mathematical Description • Test Models • Parameter Variation • Solver Comparisons • Conclusions

  3. 1) Overview of 2-stage SP methods • L-shaped Method (LSM) • Van Slyke and Wets (1969) • Regularised Decomposition (RDC) • Ruszczynski (1986) • Stochastic Decomposition (SD) • Higle and Sen (1991)

  4. 1) Overview of 2-stage SP methods • Level Method • Lemarechal, Nemirovskii, Nesterov (1995) • Level Decomposition (LDC) • Fabian, Szoke (2007)

  5. Cutting-plane method

  6. φ(x) X

  7. φ(x) X x1

  8. φ(x) X x1

  9. φ(x) X x1

  10. φ(x) X x1 x2

  11. φ(x) X x1 x2

  12. φ(x) X x1 x2

  13. φ(x) X x1 x2

  14. φ(x) X x1 x2

  15. Level method

  16. φ(x) x1 x2

  17. φ(x) x1 x2

  18. φ(x) x1 x2

  19. φ(x) x1 x2

  20. φ(x) Δ x1 x2

  21. φ(x) Δ λΔ x1 x2

  22. φ(x) Δ λΔ x1 x2

  23. φ(x) Δ λΔ x1 x2

  24. 3) Theoretical Comparisons between Methods • Convergence:- • LSM/RDC:- Finite • LDC:- Bounded • Confidence:- • SD:- Not high, But may be good enough • LSM/RDC/LDC:- Epsilon-gap (accurate) • Performance:- • SD:- Can tackle unlimited no of scenarios • LSM:- Patchy, best for small-to-medium no of scenarios • RDC:- Better than LSM on the whole • LDC:- Not so good for small, otherwise compares well with LSM

  25. 4.1) Mathematical Description • First Stage Problem is:- Min f(x)  cTx + E[Q(x,)] s.t.:- x X (polyhedral region) • Model Problem (MP) is:-Min cTx +  s.t.:- x XDx +  ≥ d (cuts)

  26. 4.2) Mathematical Description Let x0 be current iterate (from last pass) Let UB, LB be current upper, lower bounds (as in LSM) LB is the minimum of the current MP UB is the best value of f known so far Let  be a parameter:- 0 ≤  < 1

  27. 4.3) Mathematical Description Then the new iterate x1 is the optimal solution to:- Min ½(x-x0)T(x-x0)s.t.:- x XDx +  ≥ d (cuts) cTx + ≤ .UB + (1-)LB

  28. 5) Test Models

  29. 6.1) Parameter Variation

  30. 6.2) Parameter Variation

  31. 6.3) Parameter Variation

  32. 7) Solver Comparisons

  33. Conclusions • LDC shows better times than than LSM – especially for larger/harder problems • LDC offers extensions to:- • Regularise infeasibility cuts • Progressive approximation of the distribution • LDC offers better solution confidence than SD – but SD is faster & can tackle indefinite nos of scenarios

More Related