IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v300y2021i1d10.1007_s10479-020-03908-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variance reduction for sequential sampling in stochastic programming

Author

Listed:
  • Jangho Park

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Rebecca Stockbridge
  • Güzin Bayraksan

    (The Ohio State University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jangho Park & Rebecca Stockbridge & Güzin Bayraksan, 2021. "Variance reduction for sequential sampling in stochastic programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(1), pages 171-204, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:300:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-020-03908-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-020-03908-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-020-03908-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-020-03908-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian Keller & GÜzİn Bayraksan, 2010. "Scheduling jobs sharing multiple resources under uncertainty: A stochastic programming approach," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 16-30.
    2. Pierre Etore & Gersende Fort & Benjamin Jourdain & Eric Moulines, 2011. "On adaptive stratification," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 127-154, September.
    3. Yehuda Bassok & Ravi Anupindi & Ram Akella, 1999. "Single-Period Multiproduct Inventory Models with Substitution," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(4), pages 632-642, August.
    4. Sakalauskas, Leonidas L., 2002. "Nonlinear stochastic programming by Monte-Carlo estimators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(3), pages 558-573, March.
    5. Paolo Battocchio & Francesco Menoncin & Olivier Scaillet, 2007. "Optimal asset allocation for pension funds under mortality risk during the accumulation and decumulation phases," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 141-165, July.
    6. Xing Jin & Michael C. Fu & Xiaoping Xiong, 2003. "Probabilistic Error Bounds for Simulation Quantile Estimators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(2), pages 230-246, February.
    7. Julia L. Higle, 1998. "Variance Reduction and Objective Function Evaluation in Stochastic Linear Programs," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 236-247, May.
    8. Michael Freimer & Jeffrey Linderoth & Douglas Thomas, 2012. "The impact of sampling methods on bias and variance in stochastic linear programs," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 51-75, January.
    9. David P. Morton, 1998. "Stopping Rules for a Class of Sampling-Based Stochastic Programming Algorithms," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 46(5), pages 710-718, October.
    10. Rebecca Stockbridge & Güzin Bayraksan, 2016. "Variance reduction in Monte Carlo sampling-based optimality gap estimators for two-stage stochastic linear programming," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 407-431, June.
    11. Suvrajeet Sen & Yifan Liu, 2016. "Mitigating Uncertainty via Compromise Decisions in Two-Stage Stochastic Linear Programming: Variance Reduction," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 1422-1437, December.
    12. Packham, Natalie & Schmidt, Wolfgang M., 2008. "Latin hypercube sampling with dependence and applications in finance," CPQF Working Paper Series 15, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, Centre for Practical Quantitative Finance (CPQF).
    13. T. Glenn Bailey & Paul A. Jensen & David P. Morton, 1999. "Response surface analysis of two‐stage stochastic linear programming with recourse," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(7), pages 753-776, October.
    14. H. Heitsch & H. Leövey & W. Römisch, 2016. "Are Quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms efficient for two-stage stochastic programs?," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 567-603, December.
    15. Dupacova, Jitka & Gaivoronski, Alexei & Kos, Zdenek & Szantai, Tamas, 1991. "Stochastic programming in water management: A case study and a comparison of solution techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 28-44, May.
    16. Vitor L. de Matos & David P. Morton & Erlon C. Finardi, 2017. "Assessing policy quality in a multistage stochastic program for long-term hydrothermal scheduling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(2), pages 713-731, June.
    17. Güzin Bayraksan & David P. Morton, 2011. "A Sequential Sampling Procedure for Stochastic Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 898-913, August.
    18. Jeff Linderoth & Alexander Shapiro & Stephen Wright, 2006. "The empirical behavior of sampling methods for stochastic programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 215-241, February.
    19. John M. Mulvey & Andrzej Ruszczyński, 1995. "A New Scenario Decomposition Method for Large-Scale Stochastic Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 477-490, June.
    20. Sungyong Choi & Andrzej Ruszczyński & Yao Zhao, 2011. "A Multiproduct Risk-Averse Newsvendor with Law-Invariant Coherent Measures of Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 346-364, April.
    21. Wu, Fei & Sioshansi, Ramteen, 2017. "A two-stage stochastic optimization model for scheduling electric vehicle charging loads to relieve distribution-system constraints," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 55-82.
    22. Shane S. Drew & Tito Homem-de-Mello, 2012. "Some Large Deviations Results for Latin Hypercube Sampling," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 203-232, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wei Zhang & Kai Wang & Alexandre Jacquillat & Shuaian Wang, 2023. "Optimized Scenario Reduction: Solving Large-Scale Stochastic Programs with Quality Guarantees," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 886-908, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rebecca Stockbridge & Güzin Bayraksan, 2016. "Variance reduction in Monte Carlo sampling-based optimality gap estimators for two-stage stochastic linear programming," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 407-431, June.
    2. Suvrajeet Sen & Yifan Liu, 2016. "Mitigating Uncertainty via Compromise Decisions in Two-Stage Stochastic Linear Programming: Variance Reduction," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 1422-1437, December.
    3. Yunxiao Deng & Suvrajeet Sen, 2022. "Predictive stochastic programming," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 65-98, January.
    4. Panos Parpas & Berk Ustun & Mort Webster & Quang Kha Tran, 2015. "Importance Sampling in Stochastic Programming: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Approach," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 358-377, May.
    5. Xiaotie Chen & David L. Woodruff, 2024. "Distributions and bootstrap for data-based stochastic programming," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, June.
    6. Jeff Linderoth & Alexander Shapiro & Stephen Wright, 2006. "The empirical behavior of sampling methods for stochastic programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 215-241, February.
    7. Michael Freimer & Jeffrey Linderoth & Douglas Thomas, 2012. "The impact of sampling methods on bias and variance in stochastic linear programs," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 51-75, January.
    8. Löhndorf, Nils, 2016. "An empirical analysis of scenario generation methods for stochastic optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 121-132.
    9. E. Ruben van Beesten & Nick W. Koning & David P. Morton, 2024. "Assessing solution quality in risk-averse stochastic programs," Papers 2408.15690, arXiv.org.
    10. Güzin Bayraksan & David P. Morton, 2011. "A Sequential Sampling Procedure for Stochastic Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 898-913, August.
    11. Emelogu, Adindu & Chowdhury, Sudipta & Marufuzzaman, Mohammad & Bian, Linkan & Eksioglu, Burak, 2016. "An enhanced sample average approximation method for stochastic optimization," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 230-252.
    12. Ward Romeijnders & David P. Morton & Maarten H. van der Vlerk, 2017. "Assessing the Quality of Convex Approximations for Two-Stage Totally Unimodular Integer Recourse Models," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 211-231, May.
    13. Xiaotie Chen & David L. Woodruff, 2023. "Software for Data-Based Stochastic Programming Using Bootstrap Estimation," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 1218-1224, November.
    14. Harsha Gangammanavar & Yifan Liu & Suvrajeet Sen, 2021. "Stochastic Decomposition for Two-Stage Stochastic Linear Programs with Random Cost Coefficients," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 51-71, January.
    15. Seddig, Katrin & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2019. "Two-stage stochastic optimization for cost-minimal charging of electric vehicles at public charging stations with photovoltaics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 769-781.
    16. Vitor L. de Matos & David P. Morton & Erlon C. Finardi, 2017. "Assessing policy quality in a multistage stochastic program for long-term hydrothermal scheduling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(2), pages 713-731, June.
    17. Baloch, Gohram & Gzara, Fatma, 2020. "Capacity and assortment planning under one-way supplier-driven substitution for pharmacy kiosks with low drug demand," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 108-128.
    18. Johannes O. Royset & Roberto Szechtman, 2013. "Optimal Budget Allocation for Sample Average Approximation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 762-776, June.
    19. T. Glenn Bailey & Paul A. Jensen & David P. Morton, 1999. "Response surface analysis of two‐stage stochastic linear programming with recourse," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(7), pages 753-776, October.
    20. Fei, Xin & Gülpınar, Nalân & Branke, Jürgen, 2019. "Efficient solution selection for two-stage stochastic programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 918-929.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:300:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-020-03908-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.