Chance-constrained optimization with tight confidence bounds
|
|
- Derick Heath
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Chance-constrained optimization with tight confidence bounds Mark Cannon University of Oxford 25 April
2 Outline 1. Problem definition and motivation 2. Confidence bounds for randomised sample discarding 3. Posterior confidence bounds using empirical violation estimates 4. Randomized algorithm with prior and posterior confidence bounds 5. Conclusions and future directions 2
3 Chance-constrained optimization Chance constraints limit the probability of constraint violation in optimization problems with stochastic parameters Applications are numerous and diverse:... building control, chemical process design, finance, portfolio management, production planning, supply chain management, sustainable development, telecommunications networks... Long history of stochastic programming methods e.g. Charnes & Cooper, Management Sci., 1959 Prekopa, SIAM J. Control, 1966 but exact handling of probabilistic constraints is generally intractable This talk: approximate methods based on random samples 3
4 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs Battery: charged before trip, empty at end of trip Electric motor: shifts engine load point to improve fuel e ciency or emissions Control problem: optimize power flows to maximize performance (e ciency or emissions) over the driving cycle 4
5 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs Fuel P f Engine P eng Clutch Battery Circuit Electric P s Losses P b Motor P em + Gearbox Vehicle P drv Parallel configuration with common engine and electric motor speed P drv = P eng + P em! eng =! em =! (if!! stall ) I Engine fuel consumption: P f = P f (P eng,!) 5
6 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs Fuel P f Engine P eng Clutch Battery Circuit Electric P s Losses P b Motor P em + Gearbox Vehicle P drv I Electric motor electrical power P b $ mechanical power P em : P b = P b (P em,!) I Battery stored energy flow rate P s $ P b : P s = P s (P b ) stored energy E $ P s : Ė = P s 5
7 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs Nominal optimization, assuming known P drv (t),!(t) for t 2 [0,T]: minimize P eng ( ), P em ( ) 2[t,T ] Z T 0 P f (P eng ( ),!( )) d subject to Ė( ) = P s ( ), 2 [t, T ] E(t) =E now E(T ) E end with P drv = P eng + P em P b = P b (P em,!) P s = P s (P b ) 6
8 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs P drv (t),!(t) depend on uncertain tra c flow and driver behaviour 0.6 Battery state of energy Time (sec) Introduce feedback by using a receding horizon implementation but how likely is it that we can meet constraints? 7
9 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs Pdrv (t),!(t) depend on uncertain traffic flow and driver behaviour Real time traffic flow data 7
10 Motivation: Energy management in PHEVs Reformulate as a chance-constrained optimization, assuming known distributions for P drv (t),!(t): minimize P eng ( ), P em ( ) 2[t,T ] Z T 0 P f (P eng ( ),!( )) d subject to Ė( ) = P s ( ), 2 [t, T ] E(t) =E now P E(T ) <E end apple for a specified probability 8
11 Chance-constrained optimization Define the chance-constrained problem CCP : minimize x2x c > x subject to P f(x, ) > 0 apple. 2 R d stochastic parameter 2 [0, 1] maximum allowable violation probability Assume X R n compact and convex f(, ):R n! R convex, lower-semicontinuous for any 2 CCP is feasible, i.e. P{f(x, ) > 0} apple for some x 2X. 9
12 Chance-constrained optimization Computational di culties with chance constraints: 1. Prohibitive computation to determine feasibility of a given x Z P f(x, ) > 0 = 1 {f(x, )>0} ( ) F (d ) 2 Closed form expression only available in special cases N(0,I) Gaussian e.g. if f(x, )=b > 1+(d + D > ) > x a ne then P f(x, ) > 0 apple () 1 N (1 )kb + Dxk apple1 d> x In general multidimensional integration is needed (e.g. Monte Carlo methods) 10
13 Chance-constrained optimization Computational di culties with chance constraints: 2. Feasible set may be nonconvex even if f(, ) is convex for all 2 e.g. 1 N (1 ) kb + Dxk apple1 d> x is convex if apple 0.5 nonconvex if >0.5 x feasible x feasible <0.5 >0.5 10
14 Sample approximation Define the multisample! m = { (1),..., (m) } for i.i.d. (i) 2 Define the sample approximation of CCP as SP : minimize x2x!! m c > x subject to f(x, ) apple 0 for all 2!! q m q discarded constraints, m q n x (! ): optimal solution for x! : optimal solution for! 11
15 Sample approximation B Solutions of SP converge to the solution of CCP as m!1 if q = m(1 ) B Approximation accuracy characterized via bounds on: probability that solution of SP is feasible for CCP probability that optimal objective of SP exceeds that of CCP Luedtke & Ahmed, SIAM J. Optim., 2008 Calafiore, SIAM J. Optim., 2010 Campi & Garatti, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 2011 B SP can be formulated as a mixed integer program with a convex continuous relaxation 12
16 Example: minimal bounding circle Smallest circle containing a given probability mass CCP : minimize c,r R subject to P kc k >R apple SP : minimize c,r!! m R subject to kc kappler for all 2!! q e.g. =0.5, m =1000, q =500 R c CCP (0, 0) SP ( 0.003, 0.002) SP solved for one realisation! 1000 N(0,I) 13
17 Example: minimal bounding circle Bounds on confidence that SP solution, x (! ) with m = 1000, q = 500 is feasible for CCP ( ) from Calafiore, Confidence = Violation probability ϵ =) with 90% probability: the violation probability of x (! ) lies between 0.47 and 0.58
18 Example: minimal bounding circle Smallest circle containing a given probability mass observations: SP computation grows rapidly with m Bounds on confidence of feasibility of x (! ) for CCP are not tight (unless q<mor probability distribution is a specific worst case) because SP solution has poor generalization properties e.g. m = 20, q = 10: 15 Randomized sample discarding improves generalization
19 Outline 1. Problem definition and motivation 2. Confidence bounds for randomised sample discarding 3. Posterior confidence bounds using empirical violation estimates 4. Randomized algorithm with prior and posterior confidence bounds 5. Conclusions and future directions 16
20 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the sampled problem for given!! m as SP(!) : minimize x2x c > x subject to f(x, ) apple 0 for all 2! x (!): optimal solution of SP(!) Assumptions: (i). SP(!) is feasible for any!! m with probability (w.p.) 1 (ii). f x (!), 6= 0 for all 2! m \! w.p. 1 17
21 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the set of level-q subsets of! m,forq apple m as q (! m )= n o!! m :! = q and f x (!), > 0 for all 2! m \! x (!) for! 2 q (! m ) is called a level-q solution e.g. minimal bounding circle problem, m = 20, q = 10:! 2 10 (! 20 ) 18
22 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the set of level-q subsets of! m,forq apple m as q (! m )= n o!! m :! = q and f x (!), > 0 for all 2! m \! x (!) for! 2 q (! m ) is called a level-q solution e.g. minimal bounding circle problem, m = 20, q = 10:! 2 10 (! 20 ) 18
23 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the set of level-q subsets of! m,forq apple m as q (! m )= n o!! m :! = q and f x (!), > 0 for all 2! m \! x (!) for! 2 q (! m ) is called a level-q solution e.g. minimal bounding circle problem, m = 20, q = 10:! 2 10 (! 20 ) 18
24 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the set of level-q subsets of! m,forq apple m as q (! m )= n o!! m :! = q and f x (!), > 0 for all 2! m \! x (!) for! 2 q (! m ) is called a level-q solution e.g. minimal bounding circle problem, m = 20, q = 10:! 2 10 (! 20 ) 18
25 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the set of level-q subsets of! m,forq apple m as q (! m )= n o!! m :! = q and f x (!), > 0 for all 2! m \! x (!) for! 2 q (! m ) is called a level-q solution e.g. minimal bounding circle problem, m = 20, q = 10:! 2 10 (! 20 ) 18
26 Level-q subsets of a multisample Define the set of level-q subsets of! m,forq apple m as q (! m )= n o!! m :! = q and f x (!), > 0 for all 2! m \! x (!) for! 2 q (! m ) is called a level-q solution e.g. minimal bounding circle problem, m = 20, q = 10:! (! 20 ) 18
27 Essential constraint set Es(!) ={ (i1),..., (i k ) }! is an essential set of SP(!) if (i). x { (i1),..., (i k ) } = x (!), (ii). x(! \ ) 6= x (!) for all 2{ (i1),..., (i k ) }. e.g. minimal bounding circle problem CO Pi C PPPPP C C essential constraints 19
28 Support dimension Define: maximum support dimension: =esssup!2 m Es(!) m 1 minimum support dimension: =essinf!2 m Es(!) then apple dim(x) =n and 1 e.g. minimal bounding circle problem m Es(!) =2= 20
29 Support dimension Define: maximum support dimension: =esssup!2 m Es(!) m 1 minimum support dimension: =essinf!2 m Es(!) then apple dim(x) =n and 1 e.g. minimal bounding circle problem m Es(!) =3= 20
30 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Theorem 1: For any 2 [0, 1] and q 2 [,m], P m V x (!) apple! 2 q (! m ) (q ; m, 1 ). For any 2 [0, 1] and q 2 [,m], P m V x (!) apple! 2 q (! m ) apple (q ; m, 1 ). where violation probability: V (x) =P f(x, ) > 0 binomial c.d.f.: (n; N,p) = nx i=0 N p i (1 p) N i i 21
31 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Proof of Thm. 1 relies on... Lemma 1: For any v 2 [0, 1] and k 2 [, ], P m V x (! k ) apple v Es(! k ) = k = F (v) =v k (e.g. Calafiore, 2010) Proof (sketch): for all q 2 [k, m], P m! k =Es(! q) \ V x (! k ) = v Es(! k ) = k =(1 v) q k df (v) =) P m! k =Es(! q) Es(! k ) = k = Z 1 0 (1 v) q k df (v) 22 hence Z 1 0 (1 v) q k q 1 df (v) = Hausdor momentproblem k
32 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Proof of Thm. 1 relies on... Lemma 1: For any v 2 [0, 1] and k 2 [, ], P m V x (! k ) apple v Es(! k ) = k = F (v) =v k (e.g. Calafiore, 2010) Proof (sketch): for all q 2 [k, m], P m! k =Es(! q) \ V x (! k ) = v Es(! k ) = k =(1 v) q k df (v) =) P m! k =Es(! q) Es(! k ) = k = Z 1 0 (1 v) q k df (v) e.g. k =3, q =10: 22 hence Z 1 0 (1 v) q k q 1 df (v) = Hausdor momentproblem k
33 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets...and Lemma 2: For any k 2 [, ] and q 2 [k, m], P m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q (! m ) Es(! k ) = k m k = k B(m q + k, q k + 1) q k Note:! k = { (1),..., (B(, ) =beta function) (k) } is statistically equivalent to a randomly selected subset of! m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) Es(! k ) = k occurs i : q k of the samples in! m \! k satisfy f(x (! k ), ) apple 0 and the remaining m q samples satisfy f(x (! k ), ) > 0 hence Lem. 2 follows from Lem. 1 and the law of total probability 23
34 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets...and Lemma 2: For any k 2 [, ] and q 2 [k, m], P m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q (! m ) Es(! k ) = k m k = k B(m q + k, q k + 1) q k Note:! k = { (1),..., (B(, ) =beta function) (k) } is statistically equivalent to a randomly selected subset of! m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) Es(! k ) = k occurs i : q k of the samples in! m \! k satisfy f(x (! k ), ) apple 0 and the remaining m q samples satisfy f(x (! k ), ) > 0 hence Lem. 2 follows from Lem. 1 and the law of total probability 23
35 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Proof of Thm. 1 (sketch): I P m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) \ V x (! k ) apple Es(! k ) = k! = k m k B( ; m q + k, q k +1) q k (B(,, ) =incomplete beta function) I P m V x (! k ) apple! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) = Pm k! k =Es(!) for! 2 q(! m) \ V x (! k ) apple Es(! k ) = k P m k! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) Es(! k ) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) (Baye s law) I Hence P m V x (!) apple! 2 q(! m) \ Es(!) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) Thm. 1 follows from total law of probability, since, for all k 2 [, ], 24 (q ; m, 1 ) apple (q k; m, 1 ) apple (q ; m, 1 )
36 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Proof of Thm. 1 (sketch): I P m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) \ V x (! k ) apple Es(! k ) = k! = k m k B( ; m q + k, q k +1) q k (B(,, ) =incomplete beta function) I P m V x (! k ) apple! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) = Pm k! k =Es(!) for! 2 q(! m) \ V x (! k ) apple Es(! k ) = k P m k! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) Es(! k ) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) (Baye s law) I Hence P m V x (!) apple! 2 q(! m) \ Es(!) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) Thm. 1 follows from total law of probability, since, for all k 2 [, ], 24 (q ; m, 1 ) apple (q k; m, 1 ) apple (q ; m, 1 )
37 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Proof of Thm. 1 (sketch): I P m! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) \ V x (! k ) apple Es(! k ) = k! = k m k B( ; m q + k, q k +1) q k (B(,, ) =incomplete beta function) I P m V x (! k ) apple! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) = Pm k! k =Es(!) for! 2 q(! m) \ V x (! k ) apple Es(! k ) = k P m k! k =Es(!) for some! 2 q(! m) Es(! k ) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) (Baye s law) I Hence P m V x (!) apple! 2 q(! m) \ Es(!) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) Thm. 1 follows from total law of probability, since, for all k 2 [, ], 24 (q ; m, 1 ) apple (q k; m, 1 ) apple (q ; m, 1 )
38 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Consider the relationship between optimal costs: J o ( ) of CCP J (!) of SP(!) Prop. 1: P m J (!) J o ( )! 2 q (! m ) (q ; m, 1 ) Proof: J (!) J o ( ) if the solution x of SP(!) is feasible for CCP, so P m V x (!) apple! 2 q(! m) apple P m J (! r) J o ( )! 2 q(! m) Prop. 2: P m J (!) >J o ( )! = q apple (q 1; q, 1 ) Proof: J (!) apple J o ( ) if the solution x o of CCP is feasible for SP(!) i.e. if f x o ( ), apple 0 for all 2!, so P m J (!) apple J o ( ) P f x o ( ), apple 0 (1 ) q =1 (q 1; q, 1 ) q 25
39 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Consider the relationship between optimal costs: J o ( ) of CCP J (!) of SP(!) Prop. 1: P m J (!) J o ( )! 2 q (! m ) (q ; m, 1 ) Proof: J (!) J o ( ) if the solution x of SP(!) is feasible for CCP, so P m V x (!) apple! 2 q(! m) apple P m J (! r) J o ( )! 2 q(! m) Prop. 2: P m J (!) >J o ( )! = q apple (q 1; q, 1 ) Proof: J (!) apple J o ( ) if the solution x o of CCP is feasible for SP(!) i.e. if f x o ( ), apple 0 for all 2!, so P m J (!) apple J o ( ) P f x o ( ), apple 0 (1 ) q =1 (q 1; q, 1 ) q 25
40 Confidence bounds for randomly selected level-q subsets Consider the relationship between optimal costs: J o ( ) of CCP J (!) of SP(!) Prop. 1: P m J (!) J o ( )! 2 q (! m ) (q ; m, 1 ) Proof: J (!) J o ( ) if the solution x of SP(!) is feasible for CCP, so P m V x (!) apple! 2 q(! m) apple P m J (! r) J o ( )! 2 q(! m) Prop. 2: P m J (!) >J o ( )! = q apple (q 1; q, 1 ) Proof: J (!) apple J o ( ) if the solution x o of CCP is feasible for SP(!) i.e. if f x o ( ), apple 0 for all 2!, so P m J (!) apple J o ( ) P f x o ( ), apple 0 (1 ) q =1 (q 1; q, 1 ) q 25
41 Comparison with deterministic discarding strategies For optimal sample discarding (i.e. SP) or a greedy heuristic we have P m V x (! ) apple (q, ; m, ), (q, ; m q + 1 m, ) =1 m q (m q + 1; m, ) Calafiore (2010), Campi & Garatti (2011) this bound is looser than the lower bound for random sample discarding (i.e. SP(!),! 2 q (! m )) since 1 (q, ; m q + 1 m, ) = 1 (q ; m, 1 ) m q implies B (q, ; m, ) apple (q ; m, 1 ) 26 B (q, ; m, ) = (q ; m, 1 ) only if =1or q = m (in which case q(! m) =1)
42 Comparison with deterministic discarding strategies For optimal sample discarding (i.e. SP) or a greedy heuristic we have P m V x (! ) apple (q, ; m, ), (q, ; m q + 1 m, ) =1 m q (m q + 1; m, ) Calafiore (2010), Campi & Garatti (2011) this bound is looser than the lower bound for random sample discarding (i.e. SP(!),! 2 q (! m )) since 1 (q, ; m q + 1 m, ) = 1 (q ; m, 1 ) m q implies B (q, ; m, ) apple (q ; m, 1 ) 26 B (q, ; m, ) = (q ; m, 1 ) only if =1or q = m (in which case q(! m) =1)
43 Comparison with deterministic discarding strategies The lower confidence bound for optimal sample discarding corresponds to the worst case assumption: since P m V x (!) > =0for all! 2 q (! m ) such that! 6=!? Thm. 1 implies ( 1 E m q(! m) E m X P m V x (!) >!2 q(! m) ) apple 1 (q ; m, 1 )? Lem. 2 implies E m m q + 1 q(! m) apple m q 27
44 Comparison with deterministic discarding strategies Confidence bounds for m = 500 with q = d0.75me = 375, =1, = Confidence Φ(q ζ; m, 1 ϵ) Φ(q ζ; m, 1 ϵ) 0.1 Ψ(q, ζ; m, ϵ) Violation probability ϵ 28
45 Comparison with deterministic discarding strategies Values of lying on 5% and 95% confidence bounds for varying m with q = d0.75me, =1, = 10 Violation probability 0.6 ϵ ϵ 5 ϵ Sample size m 10 0 ϵ 95 ϵ 5 ϵ 95 ϵ probablities 5, 95 and 0 95 are defined by Sample size m 0.05 = (q ; m, 1 5 ), 0.95 = (q ; m, 1 95) 0.95 = (q, ; m, 0 95) 29
46 Example: minimal bounding circle Empirical distribution of violation probability for smallest bounding circle with: N(0,I), q = 80, m = 100, and500 realisations of! m x(ω), ω Ω q (ω m ) x = x (ω ) Probability of V (x) ϵ (78; 100, 1 ) (77; 100, 1 ) (80, 3; 100, ) Violation probability ϵ 30
47 Example: minimal bounding circle Empirical cost distributions for smallest bounding circle with: N(0,I), q = 80, m = 100, and500 realisations of! m ω Ω q (ω m ) ω = ω Probability of J (ω) J o (ϵ) (99; 100, 1 ) (77; 100, 1 ) (80, 3; 100, ) Violation probability ϵ 31
48 Outline 1. Problem definition and motivation 2. Confidence bounds for randomised sample discarding 3. Posterior confidence bounds using empirical violation estimates 4. Randomized algorithm with prior and posterior confidence bounds 5. Conclusions and future directions 32
49 Random constraint selection strategy How can we select! 2 q (! m ) at random? Summary of approach: For given! m,let! r = { (1),..., (r) },and solve SP(! r ) for x (! r ) count q = 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 then 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 2 q (! m ) Choose r to maximize the probability that q lies in the desired range e.g. r =10 m =50 q =13+10=23 33
50 Random constraint selection strategy How can we select! 2 q (! m ) at random? Summary of approach: For given! m,let! r = { (1),..., (r) },and solve SP(! r ) for x (! r ) count q = 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 then 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 2 q (! m ) Choose r to maximize the probability that q lies in the desired range e.g. r =10 m =50 q =13+10=23 33
51 Random constraint selection strategy How can we select! 2 q (! m ) at random? Summary of approach: For given! m,let! r = { (1),..., (r) },and solve SP(! r ) for x (! r ) count q = 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 then 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 2 q (! m ) Choose r to maximize the probability that q lies in the desired range e.g. r =10 m =50 q =13+10=23 33
52 Random constraint selection strategy How can we select! 2 q (! m ) at random? Summary of approach: For given! m,let! r = { (1),..., (r) },and solve SP(! r ) for x (! r ) count q = 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 then 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 2 q (! m ) Choose r to maximize the probability that q lies in the desired range e.g. r =10 m =50 q =13+10=23 33
53 Posterior confidence bounds Define r (! m )= 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 Theorem 2: For any 2 [0, 1] and apple r apple q apple m, P m V x (! r ) apple r (! m )=q (q ; m, 1 ). For any 2 [0, 1] and apple r apple q apple m], P m V x (! r ) apple r (! m )=q apple (q ; m, 1 ).? r(! m) provides an empirical estimate of violation probability? Thm. 2 gives aposterioriconfidence bounds (i.e. for given r(! m))? These bounds are tight for general probability distributions, i.e. they cannot be improved if can take any value in [, ] they are exact for problems with = 34
54 Posterior confidence bounds Define r (! m )= 2! m : f x (! r ), apple 0 Theorem 2: For any 2 [0, 1] and apple r apple q apple m, P m V x (! r ) apple r (! m )=q (q ; m, 1 ). For any 2 [0, 1] and apple r apple q apple m], P m V x (! r ) apple r (! m )=q apple (q ; m, 1 ).? r(! m) provides an empirical estimate of violation probability? Thm. 2 gives aposterioriconfidence bounds (i.e. for given r(! m))? These bounds are tight for general probability distributions, i.e. they cannot be improved if can take any value in [, ] they are exact for problems with = 34
55 Probability of selecting a level-q subset of! m Selection of r is based on Lemma 3: For any apple r apple q apple m, m r P m r (! m )=q min q r m r P m r (! m )=q apple q r 2[, ] max 2[, ] B(m q +,q + 1) B(,r + 1) B(m q +,q + 1) B(,r + 1) Proof (sketch): 1 From Lem. 1 & Lem. 2, for k 2 [, ] we have P m V x (! r) = v Es(! r) = k = (1 v)r k v k 1 B(k, r k +1) dv 2 r(! m)=q i q r of the m r samples in! m \! r satisfy f(x (! r), ) apple 0 and the remaining m q samples satisfy f(x (! r), ) > 0 35 Hence Lem. 3 follows from 1 and the law of total probability
56 Probability of selecting a level-q subset of! m Selection of r is based on Lemma 3: For any apple r apple q apple m, m r P m r (! m )=q min q r m r P m r (! m )=q apple q r 2[, ] max 2[, ] B(m q +,q + 1) B(,r + 1) B(m q +,q + 1) B(,r + 1) Proof (sketch): 1 From Lem. 1 & Lem. 2, for k 2 [, ] we have P m V x (! r) = v Es(! r) = k = (1 v)r k v k 1 B(k, r k +1) dv 2 r(! m)=q i q r of the m r samples in! m \! r satisfy f(x (! r), ) apple 0 and the remaining m q samples satisfy f(x (! r), ) > 0 35 Hence Lem. 3 follows from 1 and the law of total probability
57 Posterior confidence bounds (contd.) Proof of Thm. 2 (sketch): I P m r(! m)=q \ V x (! r) apple Es(! r) = k! = m r B( ; m q + k, q k +1) q r B(k, r k +1) I Hence from Lem. 3 and Bayes law P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q \ Es(! r) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) so the total law of probability implies P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q (q ; m, 1 ) X k= P m Es(! r) = k P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q min{r, } X apple (q ; m, 1 ) k= P m Es(! r) = k 36
58 Posterior confidence bounds (contd.) Proof of Thm. 2 (sketch): I P m r(! m)=q \ V x (! r) apple Es(! r) = k! = m r B( ; m q + k, q k +1) q r B(k, r k +1) I Hence from Lem. 3 and Bayes law P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q \ Es(! r) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) so the total law of probability implies P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q (q ; m, 1 ) X k= P m Es(! r) = k P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q min{r, } X apple (q ; m, 1 ) k= P m Es(! r) = k 36
59 Posterior confidence bounds (contd.) Proof of Thm. 2 (sketch): I P m r(! m)=q \ V x (! r) apple Es(! r) = k! = m r B( ; m q + k, q k +1) q r B(k, r k +1) I Hence from Lem. 3 and Bayes law P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q \ Es(! r) = k = (q k; m, 1 ) so the total law of probability implies P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q (q ; m, 1 ) X k= P m Es(! r) = k P m V x (! r) apple r(! m)=q min{r, } X apple (q ; m, 1 ) k= P m Es(! r) = k 36
60 Outline 1. Problem definition and motivation 2. Confidence bounds for randomised sample discarding 3. Posterior confidence bounds using empirical violation estimates 4. Randomized algorithm with prior and posterior confidence bounds 5. Conclusions and future directions 37
61 Parameters and target confidence bounds Consider the design of an algorithm to generate ˆx: ˆq: an approximate CCP solution the number of constraints satisfied out of m sampled constraints Impose prior confidence bounds: V (ˆx) 2 (, ] with probability p prior Impose posterior confidence bounds, given the value of ˆq: V (ˆx) ˆq/m apple with probability p post 38
62 Parameters and target confidence bounds ˆq cannot be specified directly, but, for given m and q, q: B Lem. 3 gives the probability, p trial, of r (! m ) 2 [q, q], for given r B hence SP(! r ) must be solved N trial times in order to ensure that ˆq 2 [q, q] with a given prior probability B choose r = r, the maximizer of p trial (possibly subject to r apple r max ) in order to minimize N trial Selection of m and q, q: B choose m so that posterior confidence bounds are met: m(1 ) ; m, 1 /2 1 (1 + ppost) 2 m(1 ) ; m, 1 + /2 apple 1 (1 ppost). 2 B Thm. 2 allows q, q to be chosen so that prior confidence bounds hold 39
63 Randomized algorithm with tight confidence bounds Algorithm: (i). Given bounds,, probabilities p prior <p post,andsamplesizem, determine q =min q subject to (q ; m, 1 ) 1 2 (1 + p post) q = max q subject to (q ; m, 1 ) apple 1 2 (1 p post) qx m r r = arg max r q=q q r min 2[, ] B(m q +,q + 1) B(,r + 1) qx m r B(m q +,q + 1) p trial = q r min 2[, ] B(,r + 1) q=q ln(1 pprior /p post ) N trial = ln(1 p trial ) 40
64 Randomized algorithm with tight confidence bounds Algorithm (cont.): (ii). Draw N trial multisamples,! (i) m,andforeachi =1,...,N trial : compute x (! (i) r ) count r (! (i) m )= 2! (i) m (iii). Determine i 2{1,...,N trial }: and return i = arg min i2{1,...,n trial } : f x (! (i) r ), apple ( q + q) r (!(i) m ), the solution estimate, ˆx = x (! (i ) r ) the number of satisfied constraints, ˆq = r (! (i ) m ) 40
65 Randomized algorithm with tight confidence bounds Proposition 3: ˆx, ˆq satisfy the prior confidence bounds P N trial m V (ˆx) 2 (, ] p prior and the posterior confidence bounds (q ; m, 1 ) apple P N trial m V (ˆx) apple ˆq = q apple (q ; m, 1 ). The posterior bounds follow directly from Thm. 2 The choice of q, q gives P m V (ˆx) 2 (, ] ˆq = q p post 8q 2 [q, q], =) P N trial m V (ˆx) 2 (, ] p post P N trial m ˆq 2 [q, q] but the definition of i implies P N trial m ˆq 2 [q, q] 1 (1 p trial ) N trial =) P N trial m V (ˆx) 2 (, ] p post 1 (1 p trial ) N trial so the choice of N trial ensures the prior bound 41
66 Randomized algorithm with tight confidence bounds B Large m is computationally cheap (hence small and p post 1) B p trial is a tight bound on the probability of ˆq 2 [q, q] and is exact if = B The posterior confidence bounds are tight for all distributions and are exact if = B Repeated trials and empirical violation tests have been used before e.g. Calafiore (2017), Chamanbaz et al. (2016) B The lower posterior confidence bound derived here coincides with Calafiore (2017) for fully supported problems ( = = n) but our approach: shows that this bound is exact for fully supported problems provides tight bounds in all other cases 42
67 Randomized algorithm with tight confidence bounds Variation of r and N trial with, for m = 10 5, =0.19, =0.21, =0.005, andp post =0.5(1 + p prior ): (, ) (2, 5) (7, 10) (17, 20) (47, 50) (97, 100) p prior p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 r N trial (, ) (1, 2) (1, 5) (1, 10) p prior p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 r N trial where p 1 =0.9, p 2 =0.95, p 3 =0.99, p 4 =
68 Example I: minimal bounding hypersphere Find smallest hypersphere in R 4 containing N(0,I) with probability 0.8 Support dimension: =2, =5 Prior bounds: V (ˆx) 2 (0.19, 0.21] with probability p prior =0.9 Posterior bounds: V (ˆx) ˆq/m apple0.005 with probability p post =0.95 Parameters: m = 10 5, q = 79257, q = r = 15, p trial =0.0365, N trial = 84 Compare SP solved approximately using greedy discarding (assuming one constraint discarded per iteration), with m = 420, q = 336: V x (! ) 2 (0.173, 0.332] with probability
69 Example I: minimal bounding hypersphere Find smallest hypersphere in R 4 containing N(0,I) with probability 0.8 Support dimension: =2, =5 Prior bounds: V (ˆx) 2 (0.19, 0.21] with probability p prior =0.9 Posterior bounds: V (ˆx) ˆq/m apple0.005 with probability p post =0.95 Parameters: m = 10 5, q = 79257, q = r = 15, p trial =0.0365, N trial = 84 Compare SP solved approximately using greedy discarding (assuming one constraint discarded per iteration), with m = 420, q = 336: V x (! ) 2 (0.173, 0.332] with probability
70 Example I: minimal bounding hypersphere Posterior confidence bounds given ˆq 2 [q, q]: P{V (ˆx) apple ˆq = q} (blue) P{V (ˆx) apple ˆq = q} (red) Φ( q ζ; m, 1 ϵ) Φ(q ζ; m, 1 ϵ) Probability Violation probability ϵ 45
71 Example I: minimal bounding hypersphere Observed frequency Worst-case bound Probability Proportion of sampled constraints satisfied ˆq/m Empirical probability distribution of ˆq (blue) for 1000 repetitions Worst case bound F (red), P{ ˆq/m 0.8 applet} F (0.8+t) F (0.8 t) 46
72 Example II: finite horizon robust control design Control problem (from Calafiore 2017): Determine a control sequence to drive the system state to a target over a finite horizon with high probability despite model uncertainty Discrete-time uncertain linear system z(t + 1) = A( )z(t)+bu(t), A( )=A 0 + i,j 2 [ Xn z i,j=1 i,je i e > j, ] uniformly distributed 47
73 Example II: finite horizon robust control design Control problem (from Calafiore 2017): Determine a control sequence to drive the system state to a target over a finite horizon with high probability despite model uncertainty Discrete-time uncertain linear system z(t + 1) = A( )z(t)+bu(t), A( )=A 0 + i,j 2 [ Xn z i,j=1 i,je i e > j, ] uniformly distributed 47
74 Example II: finite horizon robust control design Control objective: CCP : minimize,u subject to P kz T z(t, )k 2 + kuk 2 > apple with u = {u(0),...,u(t 1)}: predicted control sequence z(t, ): = A( ) T z(0) + A( ) T 1 B B u z T : target state control input u(t) time step t
75 Example II: finite horizon robust control design Problem dimensions: n z =6, T = 10, n = 11, =1, =3 and parameters: = 10 3, =0.005 Single-sided prior probability bounds with =0.005: P V (x) 2 (0, ] p prior =0.99 Posterior uncertainty: =0.003 and probability: p post = =) m = Choose number of sampled constraints in each trial to maximize p trial : r = 2922, p trial =0.482, N trial =9 if r is limited to 2000, we get p trial =0.414, N trial =9 49
76 Example II: finite horizon robust control design Compare number of trials needed for ˆq expected using bounds of Calfiore (2017): 9.6 expected using proposed approach (1/p trial ): 2.4 observed: 1.4 Residual conservativism is due to use of bounds: =1, =3 rather than the actual distribution for : support dimension: observed frequency: 5% 59% 36% q 50
77 Future directions B Alternative methods for randomly selecting level-q solutions B Methods of checking feasibility of suboptimal points B Estimation of violation probability over a set of parameters application to computing invariant sets for constrained dynamics v v1 B Application to chance-constrained energy management in PHEVs 51
78 Conclusions B Solutions of sampled convex optimization problems with randomised sample selection strategies have tighter confidence bounds than optimal sample discarding strategies B Randomised sample selection can be performed by solving a robust sampled optimization and counting violations of additional sampled constraints B We propose a randomised algorithm for chance-constrained convex programming with tight a priori and a posteriori confidence bounds 52
79 Thank you for your attention! Acknowledgements: James Fleming, Matthias Lorenzen, Johannes Buerger, Rainer Manuel Schaich... 53
80 Research directions B Optimal control of uncertain systems chance-constrained optimization stochastic predictive control B Robust control design invariant sets and uncertainty parameterization B Applications: energy management in hybrid electric vehicles (BMW) ecosystem-based fisheries management (BAS) 54
Worst-Case Violation of Sampled Convex Programs for Optimization with Uncertainty
Worst-Case Violation of Sampled Convex Programs for Optimization with Uncertainty Takafumi Kanamori and Akiko Takeda Abstract. Uncertain programs have been developed to deal with optimization problems
More informationA scenario approach for. non-convex control design
A scenario approach for 1 non-convex control design Sergio Grammatico, Xiaojing Zhang, Kostas Margellos, Paul Goulart and John Lygeros arxiv:1401.2200v1 [cs.sy] 9 Jan 2014 Abstract Randomized optimization
More informationScenario Optimization for Robust Design
Scenario Optimization for Robust Design foundations and recent developments Giuseppe Carlo Calafiore Dipartimento di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni Politecnico di Torino ITALY Learning for Control Workshop
More informationApproximate dynamic programming for stochastic reachability
Approximate dynamic programming for stochastic reachability Nikolaos Kariotoglou, Sean Summers, Tyler Summers, Maryam Kamgarpour and John Lygeros Abstract In this work we illustrate how approximate dynamic
More informationSolving Chance-Constrained Stochastic Programs via Sampling and Integer Programming
IFORMS 2008 c 2008 IFORMS isbn 978-1-877640-23-0 doi 10.1287/educ.1080.0048 Solving Chance-Constrained Stochastic Programs via Sampling and Integer Programming Shabbir Ahmed and Alexander Shapiro H. Milton
More informationScenario Grouping and Decomposition Algorithms for Chance-constrained Programs
Scenario Grouping and Decomposition Algorithms for Chance-constrained Programs Siqian Shen Dept. of Industrial and Operations Engineering University of Michigan Joint work with Yan Deng (UMich, Google)
More informationRandom Convex Approximations of Ambiguous Chance Constrained Programs
Random Convex Approximations of Ambiguous Chance Constrained Programs Shih-Hao Tseng Eilyan Bitar Ao Tang Abstract We investigate an approach to the approximation of ambiguous chance constrained programs
More informationSample Average Approximation Method. for Chance Constrained Programming: Theory and Applications
Sample Average Approximation Method for Chance Constrained Programming: Theory and Applications B.K. Pagnoncelli S. Ahmed A. Shapiro Communicated by P.M. Pardalos Abstract We study sample approximations
More informationConvex relaxations of chance constrained optimization problems
Convex relaxations of chance constrained optimization problems Shabbir Ahmed School of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 765 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332. May 12, 2011
More informationPolitecnico di Torino. Porto Institutional Repository
Politecnico di Torino Porto Institutional Repository [Proceeding] Model Predictive Control of stochastic LPV Systems via Random Convex Programs Original Citation: GC Calafiore; L Fagiano (2012) Model Predictive
More informationStability of optimization problems with stochastic dominance constraints
Stability of optimization problems with stochastic dominance constraints D. Dentcheva and W. Römisch Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken Humboldt-University Berlin www.math.hu-berlin.de/~romisch SIAM
More informationSemidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2012 Project: Robust Optimization and its Application of Robust Portfolio Optimization
Semidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2012 Project: Robust Optimization and its Application of Robust Portfolio Optimization Instructor: Farid Alizadeh Author: Ai Kagawa 12/12/2012
More informationRandom Variable. Pr(X = a) = Pr(s)
Random Variable Definition A random variable X on a sample space Ω is a real-valued function on Ω; that is, X : Ω R. A discrete random variable is a random variable that takes on only a finite or countably
More informationProbabilistic Optimal Estimation and Filtering
Probabilistic Optimal Estimation and Filtering Least Squares and Randomized Algorithms Fabrizio Dabbene 1 Mario Sznaier 2 Roberto Tempo 1 1 CNR - IEIIT Politecnico di Torino 2 Northeastern University Boston
More informationA robust approach to the chance-constrained knapsack problem
A robust approach to the chance-constrained knapsack problem Olivier Klopfenstein 1,2, Dritan Nace 2 1 France Télécom R&D, 38-40 rue du gl Leclerc, 92794 Issy-les-Moux cedex 9, France 2 Université de Technologie
More informationReformulation of chance constrained problems using penalty functions
Reformulation of chance constrained problems using penalty functions Martin Branda Charles University in Prague Faculty of Mathematics and Physics EURO XXIV July 11-14, 2010, Lisbon Martin Branda (MFF
More informationRobust and Stochastic Optimization Notes. Kevin Kircher, Cornell MAE
Robust and Stochastic Optimization Notes Kevin Kircher, Cornell MAE These are partial notes from ECE 6990, Robust and Stochastic Optimization, as taught by Prof. Eilyan Bitar at Cornell University in the
More informationLecture 4: Two-point Sampling, Coupon Collector s problem
Randomized Algorithms Lecture 4: Two-point Sampling, Coupon Collector s problem Sotiris Nikoletseas Associate Professor CEID - ETY Course 2013-2014 Sotiris Nikoletseas, Associate Professor Randomized Algorithms
More informationStochastic Integer Programming
IE 495 Lecture 20 Stochastic Integer Programming Prof. Jeff Linderoth April 14, 2003 April 14, 2002 Stochastic Programming Lecture 20 Slide 1 Outline Stochastic Integer Programming Integer LShaped Method
More informationChance constrained optimization - applications, properties and numerical issues
Chance constrained optimization - applications, properties and numerical issues Dr. Abebe Geletu Ilmenau University of Technology Department of Simulation and Optimal Processes (SOP) May 31, 2012 This
More informationStochastic Tube MPC with State Estimation
Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems MTNS 2010 5 9 July, 2010 Budapest, Hungary Stochastic Tube MPC with State Estimation Mark Cannon, Qifeng Cheng,
More informationarxiv: v3 [math.oc] 25 Apr 2018
Problem-driven scenario generation: an analytical approach for stochastic programs with tail risk measure Jamie Fairbrother *, Amanda Turner *, and Stein W. Wallace ** * STOR-i Centre for Doctoral Training,
More informationBranch-and-cut Approaches for Chance-constrained Formulations of Reliable Network Design Problems
Branch-and-cut Approaches for Chance-constrained Formulations of Reliable Network Design Problems Yongjia Song James R. Luedtke August 9, 2012 Abstract We study solution approaches for the design of reliably
More informationSequential Convex Approximations to Joint Chance Constrained Programs: A Monte Carlo Approach
Sequential Convex Approximations to Joint Chance Constrained Programs: A Monte Carlo Approach L. Jeff Hong Department of Industrial Engineering and Logistics Management The Hong Kong University of Science
More informationMore Approximation Algorithms
CS 473: Algorithms, Spring 2018 More Approximation Algorithms Lecture 25 April 26, 2018 Most slides are courtesy Prof. Chekuri Ruta (UIUC) CS473 1 Spring 2018 1 / 28 Formal definition of approximation
More informationOn the Power of Robust Solutions in Two-Stage Stochastic and Adaptive Optimization Problems
MATHEMATICS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH Vol. xx, No. x, Xxxxxxx 00x, pp. xxx xxx ISSN 0364-765X EISSN 156-5471 0x xx0x 0xxx informs DOI 10.187/moor.xxxx.xxxx c 00x INFORMS On the Power of Robust Solutions in
More informationMaster Project Scenario-Based Model Predictive Control for Energy-Efficient Building Climate Control
Master Project Scenario-Based Model Predictive Control for Energy-Efficient Building Climate Control Georg Schildbach, David Sturzenegger, Prof. Dr. Manfred Morari 02.Oktober 2012 Outline Introduction
More informationSolving Classification Problems By Knowledge Sets
Solving Classification Problems By Knowledge Sets Marcin Orchel a, a Department of Computer Science, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland Abstract We propose
More informationORIGINS OF STOCHASTIC PROGRAMMING
ORIGINS OF STOCHASTIC PROGRAMMING Early 1950 s: in applications of Linear Programming unknown values of coefficients: demands, technological coefficients, yields, etc. QUOTATION Dantzig, Interfaces 20,1990
More informationAn Adaptive Partition-based Approach for Solving Two-stage Stochastic Programs with Fixed Recourse
An Adaptive Partition-based Approach for Solving Two-stage Stochastic Programs with Fixed Recourse Yongjia Song, James Luedtke Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, ysong3@vcu.edu University
More informationMIP reformulations of some chance-constrained mathematical programs
MIP reformulations of some chance-constrained mathematical programs Ricardo Fukasawa Department of Combinatorics & Optimization University of Waterloo December 4th, 2012 FIELDS Industrial Optimization
More informationScenario-Based Approach to Stochastic Linear Predictive Control
Scenario-Based Approach to Stochastic Linear Predictive Control Jadranko Matuško and Francesco Borrelli Abstract In this paper we consider the problem of predictive control for linear systems subject to
More informationOn the Power of Robust Solutions in Two-Stage Stochastic and Adaptive Optimization Problems
MATHEMATICS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH Vol. 35, No., May 010, pp. 84 305 issn 0364-765X eissn 156-5471 10 350 084 informs doi 10.187/moor.1090.0440 010 INFORMS On the Power of Robust Solutions in Two-Stage
More informationOptimized Bonferroni Approximations of Distributionally Robust Joint Chance Constraints
Optimized Bonferroni Approximations of Distributionally Robust Joint Chance Constraints Weijun Xie Shabbir Ahmed Ruiwei Jiang February 13, 2017 Abstract A distributionally robust joint chance constraint
More informationAPPROXIMATE SOLUTION OF A SYSTEM OF LINEAR EQUATIONS WITH RANDOM PERTURBATIONS
APPROXIMATE SOLUTION OF A SYSTEM OF LINEAR EQUATIONS WITH RANDOM PERTURBATIONS P. Date paresh.date@brunel.ac.uk Center for Analysis of Risk and Optimisation Modelling Applications, Department of Mathematical
More informationPersuading a Pessimist
Persuading a Pessimist Afshin Nikzad PRELIMINARY DRAFT Abstract While in practice most persuasion mechanisms have a simple structure, optimal signals in the Bayesian persuasion framework may not be so.
More informationHandout 8: Dealing with Data Uncertainty
MFE 5100: Optimization 2015 16 First Term Handout 8: Dealing with Data Uncertainty Instructor: Anthony Man Cho So December 1, 2015 1 Introduction Conic linear programming CLP, and in particular, semidefinite
More informationManaging Uncertainty and Security in Power System Operations: Chance-Constrained Optimal Power Flow
Managing Uncertainty and Security in Power System Operations: Chance-Constrained Optimal Power Flow Line Roald, November 4 th 2016 Line Roald 09.11.2016 1 Outline Introduction Chance-Constrained Optimal
More informationReal-time energy management of the Volvo V60 PHEV based on a closed-form minimization of the Hamiltonian
Real-time energy management of the Volvo V6 PHEV based on a closed-form minimization of the Hamiltonian Viktor Larsson 1, Lars Johannesson 1, Bo Egardt 1 Andreas Karlsson 2, Anders Lasson 2 1 Department
More informationCS242: Probabilistic Graphical Models Lecture 7B: Markov Chain Monte Carlo & Gibbs Sampling
CS242: Probabilistic Graphical Models Lecture 7B: Markov Chain Monte Carlo & Gibbs Sampling Professor Erik Sudderth Brown University Computer Science October 27, 2016 Some figures and materials courtesy
More information2 Chance constrained programming
2 Chance constrained programming In this Chapter we give a brief introduction to chance constrained programming. The goals are to motivate the subject and to give the reader an idea of the related difficulties.
More informationLecture notes on Regression: Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
Lecture notes on Regression: Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Dr. Veselina Kalinova, Max Planck Institute for Radioastronomy, Bonn Machine Learning course: the elegant way to extract information from data,
More informationBayesian Congestion Control over a Markovian Network Bandwidth Process
Bayesian Congestion Control over a Markovian Network Bandwidth Process Parisa Mansourifard 1/30 Bayesian Congestion Control over a Markovian Network Bandwidth Process Parisa Mansourifard (USC) Joint work
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.oc] 11 Jan 2018
From Uncertainty Data to Robust Policies for Temporal Logic Planning arxiv:181.3663v1 [math.oc 11 Jan 218 ABSTRACT Pier Giuseppe Sessa* Automatic Control Laboratory, ETH Zürich Zürich, Switzerland sessap@student.ethz.ch
More informationPolyhedral Approaches to Online Bipartite Matching
Polyhedral Approaches to Online Bipartite Matching Alejandro Toriello joint with Alfredo Torrico, Shabbir Ahmed Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Industrial
More informationarxiv: v2 [cs.sy] 29 Mar 2016
Approximate Dynamic Programming: a Q-Function Approach Paul Beuchat, Angelos Georghiou and John Lygeros 1 ariv:1602.07273v2 [cs.sy] 29 Mar 2016 Abstract In this paper we study both the value function and
More informationAlgorithmisches Lernen/Machine Learning
Algorithmisches Lernen/Machine Learning Part 1: Stefan Wermter Introduction Connectionist Learning (e.g. Neural Networks) Decision-Trees, Genetic Algorithms Part 2: Norman Hendrich Support-Vector Machines
More informationGrundlagen der Künstlichen Intelligenz
Grundlagen der Künstlichen Intelligenz Uncertainty & Probabilities & Bandits Daniel Hennes 16.11.2017 (WS 2017/18) University Stuttgart - IPVS - Machine Learning & Robotics 1 Today Uncertainty Probability
More informationSelected Topics in Chance-Constrained Programming
Selected Topics in Chance-Constrained Programg Tara Rengarajan April 03, 2009 Abstract We consider chance-constrained programs in which the probability distribution of the random parameters is deteristic
More informationThe Retail Planning Problem Under Demand Uncertainty. UCLA Anderson School of Management
The Retail Planning Problem Under Demand Uncertainty George Georgiadis joint work with Kumar Rajaram UCLA Anderson School of Management Introduction Many retail store chains carry private label products.
More informationA Recourse Approach for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem with Evidential Demands
A Recourse Approach for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem with Evidential Demands Nathalie Helal 1, Frédéric Pichon 1, Daniel Porumbel 2, David Mercier 1 and Éric Lefèvre1 1 Université d Artois,
More informationRobust Optimization for Risk Control in Enterprise-wide Optimization
Robust Optimization for Risk Control in Enterprise-wide Optimization Juan Pablo Vielma Department of Industrial Engineering University of Pittsburgh EWO Seminar, 011 Pittsburgh, PA Uncertainty in Optimization
More informationPolynomial chaos expansions for structural reliability analysis
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOMATIC ENGINEERING CHAIR OF RISK, SAFETY & UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION Polynomial chaos expansions for structural reliability analysis B. Sudret & S. Marelli Incl.
More informationOptimization Tools in an Uncertain Environment
Optimization Tools in an Uncertain Environment Michael C. Ferris University of Wisconsin, Madison Uncertainty Workshop, Chicago: July 21, 2008 Michael Ferris (University of Wisconsin) Stochastic optimization
More informationLIGHT ROBUSTNESS. Matteo Fischetti, Michele Monaci. DEI, University of Padova. 1st ARRIVAL Annual Workshop and Review Meeting, Utrecht, April 19, 2007
LIGHT ROBUSTNESS Matteo Fischetti, Michele Monaci DEI, University of Padova 1st ARRIVAL Annual Workshop and Review Meeting, Utrecht, April 19, 2007 Work supported by the Future and Emerging Technologies
More informationMonte Carlo (MC) Simulation Methods. Elisa Fadda
Monte Carlo (MC) Simulation Methods Elisa Fadda 1011-CH328, Molecular Modelling & Drug Design 2011 Experimental Observables A system observable is a property of the system state. The system state i is
More informationTheory of Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Konstantin Kashin
Gov 2001 Section 5: Theory of Maximum Likelihood Estimation Konstantin Kashin February 28, 2013 Outline Introduction Likelihood Examples of MLE Variance of MLE Asymptotic Properties What is Statistical
More informationBayesian Social Learning with Random Decision Making in Sequential Systems
Bayesian Social Learning with Random Decision Making in Sequential Systems Yunlong Wang supervised by Petar M. Djurić Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Stony Brook University Stony Brook,
More informationAlleviating tuning sensitivity in Approximate Dynamic Programming
Alleviating tuning sensitivity in Approximate Dynamic Programming Paul Beuchat, Angelos Georghiou and John Lygeros Abstract Approximate Dynamic Programming offers benefits for large-scale systems compared
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.oc] 27 Aug 2018
From Uncertainty Data to Robust Policies for Temporal Logic Planning arxiv:181.3663v2 [math.oc 27 Aug 218 ABSTRACT Pier Giuseppe Sessa Automatic Control Laboratory, ETH Zurich Zurich, Switzerland sessap@student.ethz.ch
More informationSequential Importance Sampling for Rare Event Estimation with Computer Experiments
Sequential Importance Sampling for Rare Event Estimation with Computer Experiments Brian Williams and Rick Picard LA-UR-12-22467 Statistical Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory Abstract Importance
More informationLikelihood Bounds for Constrained Estimation with Uncertainty
Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, and the European Control Conference 5 Seville, Spain, December -5, 5 WeC4. Likelihood Bounds for Constrained Estimation with Uncertainty
More informationAgent based modelling of technological diffusion and network influence
Agent based modelling of technological diffusion and network influence May 4, 23 Martino Tran, D.Phil.(Oxon) Senior Researcher, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford Outline Outline. Study
More informationA Tighter Variant of Jensen s Lower Bound for Stochastic Programs and Separable Approximations to Recourse Functions
A Tighter Variant of Jensen s Lower Bound for Stochastic Programs and Separable Approximations to Recourse Functions Huseyin Topaloglu School of Operations Research and Information Engineering, Cornell
More informationStatistical learning. Chapter 20, Sections 1 4 1
Statistical learning Chapter 20, Sections 1 4 Chapter 20, Sections 1 4 1 Outline Bayesian learning Maximum a posteriori and maximum likelihood learning Bayes net learning ML parameter learning with complete
More informationData-Driven Optimization under Distributional Uncertainty
Data-Driven Optimization under Distributional Uncertainty Postdoctoral Researcher Electrical and Systems Engineering University of Pennsylvania A network of physical objects - Devices - Vehicles - Buildings
More informationDistributionally Robust Discrete Optimization with Entropic Value-at-Risk
Distributionally Robust Discrete Optimization with Entropic Value-at-Risk Daniel Zhuoyu Long Department of SEEM, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, zylong@se.cuhk.edu.hk Jin Qi NUS Business School, National
More informationSTA 4273H: Statistical Machine Learning
STA 4273H: Statistical Machine Learning Russ Salakhutdinov Department of Computer Science! Department of Statistical Sciences! rsalakhu@cs.toronto.edu! h0p://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~rsalakhu/ Lecture 7 Approximate
More informationStochastic Subgradient Methods
Stochastic Subgradient Methods Stephen Boyd and Almir Mutapcic Notes for EE364b, Stanford University, Winter 26-7 April 13, 28 1 Noisy unbiased subgradient Suppose f : R n R is a convex function. We say
More informationCS242: Probabilistic Graphical Models Lecture 4A: MAP Estimation & Graph Structure Learning
CS242: Probabilistic Graphical Models Lecture 4A: MAP Estimation & Graph Structure Learning Professor Erik Sudderth Brown University Computer Science October 4, 2016 Some figures and materials courtesy
More informationJ. Sadeghi E. Patelli M. de Angelis
J. Sadeghi E. Patelli Institute for Risk and, Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom 8th International Workshop on Reliable Computing, Computing with Confidence University of
More informationSubject: Optimal Control Assignment-1 (Related to Lecture notes 1-10)
Subject: Optimal Control Assignment- (Related to Lecture notes -). Design a oil mug, shown in fig., to hold as much oil possible. The height and radius of the mug should not be more than 6cm. The mug must
More informationA Study of Covariances within Basic and Extended Kalman Filters
A Study of Covariances within Basic and Extended Kalman Filters David Wheeler Kyle Ingersoll December 2, 2013 Abstract This paper explores the role of covariance in the context of Kalman filters. The underlying
More informationX 1 ((, a]) = {ω Ω : X(ω) a} F, which leads us to the following definition:
nna Janicka Probability Calculus 08/09 Lecture 4. Real-valued Random Variables We already know how to describe the results of a random experiment in terms of a formal mathematical construction, i.e. the
More informationLong-Run Covariability
Long-Run Covariability Ulrich K. Müller and Mark W. Watson Princeton University October 2016 Motivation Study the long-run covariability/relationship between economic variables great ratios, long-run Phillips
More informationModel-Based Reinforcement Learning with Continuous States and Actions
Marc P. Deisenroth, Carl E. Rasmussen, and Jan Peters: Model-Based Reinforcement Learning with Continuous States and Actions in Proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks
More informationSafe Approximations of Chance Constraints Using Historical Data
Safe Approximations of Chance Constraints Using Historical Data İhsan Yanıkoğlu Department of Econometrics and Operations Research, Tilburg University, 5000 LE, Netherlands, {i.yanikoglu@uvt.nl} Dick den
More information3.4 Relaxations and bounds
3.4 Relaxations and bounds Consider a generic Discrete Optimization problem z = min{c(x) : x X} with an optimal solution x X. In general, the algorithms generate not only a decreasing sequence of upper
More information16 : Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
10-708: Probabilistic Graphical Models 10-708, Spring 2014 16 : Markov Chain Monte Carlo MCMC Lecturer: Matthew Gormley Scribes: Yining Wang, Renato Negrinho 1 Sampling from low-dimensional distributions
More informationPROBABILISTIC ROBUST CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN BY STOCHASTIC OPTIMIZATION
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Engineering PROBABILISTIC ROBUST CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN BY STOCHASTIC OPTIMIZATION A Thesis in Electrical Engineering by Xiang Li c 2004
More informationEfficient Aircraft Design Using Bayesian History Matching. Institute for Risk and Uncertainty
Efficient Aircraft Design Using Bayesian History Matching F.A. DiazDelaO, A. Garbuno, Z. Gong Institute for Risk and Uncertainty DiazDelaO (U. of Liverpool) DiPaRT 2017 November 22, 2017 1 / 32 Outline
More informationChance-Constrained Binary Packing Problems
INFORMS JOURNAL ON COMPUTING Vol. 00, No. 0, Xxxxx 0000, pp. 000 000 issn 0899-1499 eissn 1526-5528 00 0000 0001 INFORMS doi 10.1287/ijoc.2014.0595 c 0000 INFORMS Authors are encouraged to submit new papers
More informationA Stochastic-Oriented NLP Relaxation for Integer Programming
A Stochastic-Oriented NLP Relaxation for Integer Programming John Birge University of Chicago (With Mihai Anitescu (ANL/U of C), Cosmin Petra (ANL)) Motivation: The control of energy systems, particularly
More informationLecture 1. Stochastic Optimization: Introduction. January 8, 2018
Lecture 1 Stochastic Optimization: Introduction January 8, 2018 Optimization Concerned with mininmization/maximization of mathematical functions Often subject to constraints Euler (1707-1783): Nothing
More informationNEW RESULTS ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF INTERVAL PREDICTOR MODELS
NEW RESULTS ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF INTERVAL PREDICTOR MODELS M.C. Campi G. Calafiore S. Garatti Dipartimento di Elettronica per l Automazione - Università di Brescia, Italy. e-mail: campi@ing.unibs.it
More informationJitka Dupačová and scenario reduction
Jitka Dupačová and scenario reduction W. Römisch Humboldt-University Berlin Institute of Mathematics http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~romisch Session in honor of Jitka Dupačová ICSP 2016, Buzios (Brazil),
More informationStochastic Optimization with Risk Measures
Stochastic Optimization with Risk Measures IMA New Directions Short Course on Mathematical Optimization Jim Luedtke Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison August
More informationPATTERN RECOGNITION AND MACHINE LEARNING CHAPTER 13: SEQUENTIAL DATA
PATTERN RECOGNITION AND MACHINE LEARNING CHAPTER 13: SEQUENTIAL DATA Contents in latter part Linear Dynamical Systems What is different from HMM? Kalman filter Its strength and limitation Particle Filter
More information9 Multi-Model State Estimation
Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering Estimation and Identification in Dynamical Systems (048825) Lecture Notes, Fall 2009, Prof. N. Shimkin 9 Multi-Model State
More informationBayesian Methods for Machine Learning
Bayesian Methods for Machine Learning CS 584: Big Data Analytics Material adapted from Radford Neal s tutorial (http://ftp.cs.utoronto.ca/pub/radford/bayes-tut.pdf), Zoubin Ghahramni (http://hunch.net/~coms-4771/zoubin_ghahramani_bayesian_learning.pdf),
More informationHandout 6: Some Applications of Conic Linear Programming
ENGG 550: Foundations of Optimization 08 9 First Term Handout 6: Some Applications of Conic Linear Programming Instructor: Anthony Man Cho So November, 08 Introduction Conic linear programming CLP, and
More informationThe Scenario Approach to Robust Control Design
The Scenario Approach to Robust Control Design GC Calafiore and MC Campi Abstract This paper proposes a new probabilistic solution framework for robust control analysis and synthesis problems that can
More informationEE C128 / ME C134 Feedback Control Systems
EE C128 / ME C134 Feedback Control Systems Lecture Additional Material Introduction to Model Predictive Control Maximilian Balandat Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science University of
More informationA Probabilistic Framework for solving Inverse Problems. Lambros S. Katafygiotis, Ph.D.
A Probabilistic Framework for solving Inverse Problems Lambros S. Katafygiotis, Ph.D. OUTLINE Introduction to basic concepts of Bayesian Statistics Inverse Problems in Civil Engineering Probabilistic Model
More informationChapter 2. Binary and M-ary Hypothesis Testing 2.1 Introduction (Levy 2.1)
Chapter 2. Binary and M-ary Hypothesis Testing 2.1 Introduction (Levy 2.1) Detection problems can usually be casted as binary or M-ary hypothesis testing problems. Applications: This chapter: Simple hypothesis
More informationElements of probability theory
The role of probability theory in statistics We collect data so as to provide evidentiary support for answers we give to our many questions about the world (and in our particular case, about the business
More informationRandomized Load Balancing:The Power of 2 Choices
Randomized Load Balancing: The Power of 2 Choices June 3, 2010 Balls and Bins Problem We have m balls that are thrown into n bins, the location of each ball chosen independently and uniformly at random
More informationBayesian Inference and MCMC
Bayesian Inference and MCMC Aryan Arbabi Partly based on MCMC slides from CSC412 Fall 2018 1 / 18 Bayesian Inference - Motivation Consider we have a data set D = {x 1,..., x n }. E.g each x i can be the
More informationBasics of Uncertainty Analysis
Basics of Uncertainty Analysis Chapter Six Basics of Uncertainty Analysis 6.1 Introduction As shown in Fig. 6.1, analysis models are used to predict the performances or behaviors of a product under design.
More informationProbability Distributions for Continuous Variables. Probability Distributions for Continuous Variables
Probability Distributions for Continuous Variables Probability Distributions for Continuous Variables Let X = lake depth at a randomly chosen point on lake surface If we draw the histogram so that the
More information