Robust optimization explained
Robust optimization is a field of mathematical optimization theory that deals with optimization problems in which a certain measure of robustness is sought against uncertainty that can be represented as deterministic variability in the value of the parameters of the problem itself and/or its solution. It is related to, but often distinguished from, probabilistic optimization methods such as chance-constrained optimization.[1] [2]
History
The origins of robust optimization date back to the establishment of modern decision theory in the 1950s and the use of worst case analysis and Wald's maximin model as a tool for the treatment of severe uncertainty. It became a discipline of its own in the 1970s with parallel developments in several scientific and technological fields. Over the years, it has been applied in statistics, but also in operations research,[3] electrical engineering,[4] [5] [6] control theory,[7] finance,[8] portfolio management[9] logistics,[10] manufacturing engineering,[11] chemical engineering,[12] medicine,[13] and computer science. In engineering problems, these formulations often take the name of "Robust Design Optimization", RDO or "Reliability Based Design Optimization", RBDO.
Example 1
Consider the following linear programming problem
maxx,y \{3x+2y\} subject to x,y\ge0;cx+dy\le10,\forall(c,d)\inP
where
is a given subset of
.
What makes this a 'robust optimization' problem is the
clause in the constraints. Its implication is that for a pair
to be admissible, the constraint
must be satisfied by the
worst
pertaining to
, namely the pair
that maximizes the value of
for the given value of
.
If the parameter space
is finite (consisting of finitely many elements), then this robust optimization problem itself is a
linear programming problem: for each
there is a linear constraint
.
If
is not a finite set, then this problem is a linear
semi-infinite programming problem, namely a linear programming problem with finitely many (2) decision variables and infinitely many constraints.
Classification
There are a number of classification criteria for robust optimization problems/models. In particular, one can distinguish between problems dealing with local and global models of robustness; and between probabilistic and non-probabilistic models of robustness. Modern robust optimization deals primarily with non-probabilistic models of robustness that are worst case oriented and as such usually deploy Wald's maximin models.
Local robustness
There are cases where robustness is sought against small perturbations in a nominal value of a parameter. A very popular model of local robustness is the radius of stability model:
\hat{\rho}(x,\hat{u}):=max\rho\ge \{\rho:u\inS(x),\forallu\inB(\rho,\hat{u})\}
where
denotes the nominal value of the parameter,
denotes a ball of radius
centered at
and
denotes the set of values of
that satisfy given stability/performance conditions associated with decision
.
In words, the robustness (radius of stability) of decision
is the radius of the largest ball centered at
all of whose elements satisfy the stability requirements imposed on
. The picture is this:
where the rectangle
represents the set of all the values
associated with decision
.
Global robustness
Consider the simple abstract robust optimization problem
maxx\in \{f(x):g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inU\}
where
denotes the set of all
possible values of
under consideration.
This is a global robust optimization problem in the sense that the robustness constraint
represents all the
possible values of
.
The difficulty is that such a "global" constraint can be too demanding in that there is no
that satisfies this constraint. But even if such an
exists, the constraint can be too "conservative" in that it yields a solution
that generates a very small payoff
that is not representative of the performance of other decisions in
. For instance, there could be an
that only slightly violates the robustness constraint but yields a very large payoff
. In such cases it might be necessary to relax a bit the robustness constraint and/or modify the statement of the problem.
Example 2
Consider the case where the objective is to satisfy a constraint
. where
denotes the decision variable and
is a parameter whose set of possible values in
. If there is no
such that
, then the following intuitive measure of robustness suggests itself:
\rho(x):=maxY\subseteq \{size(Y):g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inY\} , x\inX
where
denotes an appropriate measure of the "size" of set
. For example, if
is a finite set, then
could be defined as the
cardinality of set
.
In words, the robustness of decision is the size of the largest subset of
for which the constraint
is satisfied for each
in this set. An optimal decision is then a decision whose robustness is the largest.
This yields the following robust optimization problem:
maxx\in \{size(Y):g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inY\}
This intuitive notion of global robustness is not used often in practice because the robust optimization problems that it induces are usually (not always) very difficult to solve.
Example 3
Consider the robust optimization problem
z(U):=maxx\in \{f(x):g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inU\}
where
is a real-valued function on
, and assume that there is no feasible solution to this problem because the robustness constraint
is too demanding.
To overcome this difficulty, let
be a relatively small subset of
representing "normal" values of
and consider the following robust optimization problem:
z(l{N}):=maxx\in \{f(x):g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inl{N}\}
Since
is much smaller than
, its optimal solution may not perform well on a large portion of
and therefore may not be robust against the variability of
over
.
One way to fix this difficulty is to relax the constraint
for values of
outside the set
in a controlled manner so that larger violations are allowed as the distance of
from
increases. For instance, consider the relaxed robustness constraint
g(x,u)\leb+\beta ⋅ dist(u,l{N}) , \forallu\inU
where
is a control parameter and
denotes the distance of
from
. Thus, for
the relaxed robustness constraint reduces back to the original robustness constraint.This yields the following (relaxed) robust optimization problem:
z(l{N},U):=maxx\in \{f(x):g(x,u)\leb+\beta ⋅ dist(u,l{N}) , \forallu\inU\}
The function
is defined in such a manner that
dist(u,l{N})\ge0,\forallu\inU
and
dist(u,l{N})=0,\forallu\inl{N}
and therefore the optimal solution to the relaxed problem satisfies the original constraint
for all values of
in
. It also satisfies the relaxed constraint
g(x,u)\leb+\beta ⋅ dist(u,l{N})
outside
.
Non-probabilistic robust optimization models
The dominating paradigm in this area of robust optimization is Wald's maximin model, namely
where the
represents the decision maker, the
represents Nature, namely
uncertainty,
represents the decision space and
denotes the set of possible values of
associated with decision
. This is the
classic format of the generic model, and is often referred to as
minimax or
maximin optimization problem. The non-probabilistic (
deterministic) model has been and is being extensively used for robust optimization especially in the field of signal processing.
[14] [15] [16] The equivalent mathematical programming (MP) of the classic format above is
maxx\in \{v:v\lef(x,u),\forallu\inU(x)\}
Constraints can be incorporated explicitly in these models. The generic constrained classic format is
maxx\inminu\in \{f(x,u):g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inU(x)\}
The equivalent constrained MP format is defined as:
maxx\in \{v:v\lef(x,u),g(x,u)\leb,\forallu\inU(x)\}
Probabilistically robust optimization models
These models quantify the uncertainty in the "true" value of the parameter of interest by probability distribution functions. They have been traditionally classified as stochastic programming and stochastic optimization models. Recently, probabilistically robust optimization has gained popularity by the introduction of rigorous theories such as scenario optimization able to quantify the robustness level of solutions obtained by randomization. These methods are also relevant to data-driven optimization methods.
Robust counterpart
The solution method to many robust program involves creating a deterministic equivalent, called the robust counterpart. The practical difficulty of a robust program depends on if its robust counterpart is computationally tractable.[17] [18]
See also
Further reading
- H.J. Greenberg. Mathematical Programming Glossary. World Wide Web, http://glossary.computing.society.informs.org/, 1996-2006. Edited by the INFORMS Computing Society.
- Ben-Tal . A. . Nemirovski . A. . 1998 . Robust Convex Optimization . . 23 . 4. 769–805 . 10.1287/moor.23.4.769. 10.1.1.135.798 . 15905691 .
- Ben-Tal . A. . Nemirovski . A. . 1999 . Robust solutions to uncertain linear programs . . 25 . 1–13 . 10.1016/s0167-6377(99)00016-4. 10.1.1.424.861 .
- Ben-Tal . A. . Arkadi Nemirovski . A. . 2002 . Robust optimization—methodology and applications . Mathematical Programming, Series B . 92 . 3. 453–480 . 10.1007/s101070100286. 10.1.1.298.7965 . 1429482 .
- Ben-Tal A., El Ghaoui, L. and Nemirovski, A. (2006). Mathematical Programming, Special issue on Robust Optimization, Volume 107(1-2).
- Ben-Tal A., El Ghaoui, L. and Nemirovski, A. (2009). Robust Optimization. Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics, Princeton University Press.
- Bertsimas . D. . Sim . M. . 2003 . Robust Discrete Optimization and Network Flows . Mathematical Programming . 98 . 1–3. 49–71 . 10.1007/s10107-003-0396-4. 10.1.1.392.4470 . 1279073 .
- Bertsimas . D. . Sim . M. . 2006 . Tractable Approximations to Robust Conic Optimization Problems Dimitris Bertsimas . Mathematical Programming . 107 . 1. 5–36 . 10.1007/s10107-005-0677-1. 10.1.1.207.8378 . 900938 .
- Chen . W. . Sim . M. . 2009 . Goal Driven Optimization . Operations Research . 57 . 2. 342–357 . 10.1287/opre.1080.0570.
- Chen . X. . Sim . M. . Sun . P. . Zhang . J. . 2008 . A Linear-Decision Based Approximation Approach to Stochastic Programming . Operations Research . 56 . 2. 344–357 . 10.1287/opre.1070.0457.
- Chen . X. . Sim . M. . Sun . P. . 2007 . A Robust Optimization Perspective on Stochastic Programming . Operations Research . 55 . 6. 1058–1071 . 10.1287/opre.1070.0441.
- Dembo . R . 1991 . Scenario optimization . Annals of Operations Research . 30 . 1. 63–80 . 10.1007/bf02204809. 44126126 .
- Dodson, B., Hammett, P., and Klerx, R. (2014) Probabilistic Design for Optimization and Robustness for Engineers John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Gupta . S.K. . Rosenhead . J. . 1968 . Robustness in sequential investment decisions . 10.1287/mnsc.15.2.B18 . Management Science . 15 . 2. 18–29 .
- Kouvelis P. and Yu G. (1997). Robust Discrete Optimization and Its Applications, Kluwer.
- Mutapcic . Almir . Boyd . Stephen . 2009 . Cutting-set methods for robust convex optimization with pessimizing oracles . Optimization Methods and Software . 24 . 3. 381–406 . 10.1080/10556780802712889. 10.1.1.416.4912 . 16443437 .
- Mulvey . J.M. . Vanderbei . R.J. . Zenios . S.A. . 1995 . Robust Optimization of Large-Scale Systems . Operations Research . 43 . 2. 264–281 . 10.1287/opre.43.2.264.
- Nejadseyfi, O., Geijselaers H.J.M, van den Boogaard A.H. (2018). "Robust optimization based on analytical evaluation of uncertainty propagation". Engineering Optimization 51 (9): 1581-1603. .
- Rosenblat . M.J. . 1987 . A robust approach to facility design . International Journal of Production Research . 25 . 4. 479–486 . 10.1080/00207548708919855 .
- Rosenhead . M.J . Elton . M . Gupta . S.K. . 1972 . Robustness and Optimality as Criteria for Strategic Decisions . Operational Research Quarterly . 23 . 4. 413–430 . 10.2307/3007957. 3007957 .
- Rustem B. and Howe M. (2002). Algorithms for Worst-case Design and Applications to Risk Management, Princeton University Press.
- Sniedovich . M . 2007 . The art and science of modeling decision-making under severe uncertainty . Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services. 1 . 1–2. 111–136 . 10.7494/dmms.2007.1.2.111 . free .
- Sniedovich . M . 2008 . Wald's Maximin Model: a Treasure in Disguise! . Journal of Risk Finance . 9 . 3. 287–291 . 10.1108/15265940810875603.
- Sniedovich . M . 2010 . A bird's view of info-gap decision theory . Journal of Risk Finance . 11 . 3. 268–283 . 10.1108/15265941011043648.
- Wald . A . 1939 . Contributions to the theory of statistical estimation and testing hypotheses . The Annals of Mathematics . 10 . 4. 299–326 . 10.1214/aoms/1177732144. free .
- Wald . A . 1945 . Statistical decision functions which minimize the maximum risk . The Annals of Mathematics . 46 . 2. 265–280 . 10.2307/1969022. 1969022 .
- Wald, A. (1950). Statistical Decision Functions, John Wiley, NY.
- Book: 10.1109/IranianCEE.2015.7146458. 978-1-4799-1972-7. Generation Maintenance Scheduling via robust optimization. 2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering. 2015. Shabanzadeh. Morteza. Fattahi. Mohammad. 1504–1509. 8774918 .
External links
Notes and References
- https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/825
- https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~elghaoui/Teaching/EE227A/lecture24.pdf
- Bertsimas. Dimitris. Sim, Melvyn . The Price of Robustness. Operations Research. 2004. 52. 1. 35–53. 10.1287/opre.1030.0065. 2268/253225 . 8946639 . free.
- Giraldo . Juan S. . Castrillon . Jhon A. . Lopez . Juan Camilo . Rider . Marcos J. . Castro . Carlos A. . July 2019 . Microgrids Energy Management Using Robust Convex Programming . IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid . 10 . 4 . 4520–4530 . 10.1109/TSG.2018.2863049 . 115674048 . 1949-3053.
- The design of a risk-hedging tool for virtual power plants via robust optimization approach . Applied Energy . October 2015 . 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.059 . Shabanzadeh M . 155 . 766–777 . Sheikh-El-Eslami . M-K . Haghifam . P. M-R.
- Book: 1504–1509 . July 2015 . 10.1109/IranianCEE.2015.7146458 . Shabanzadeh M . Fattahi . M . 2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering . Generation Maintenance Scheduling via robust optimization . 978-1-4799-1972-7 . 8774918 .
- Khargonekar. P.P.. Petersen, I.R. . Zhou, K. . Robust stabilization of uncertain linear systems: quadratic stabilizability and H/sup infinity / control theory. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 35. 3. 356–361. 10.1109/9.50357. 1990.
- https://books.google.com/books?id=p6UHHfkQ9Y8C&dq=economics%20robust%20optimization&pg=PR11 Robust portfolio optimization
- Md. Asadujjaman and Kais Zaman, "Robust Portfolio Optimization under Data Uncertainty" 15th National Statistical Conference, December 2014, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
- Yu. Chian-Son. Li, Han-Lin . A robust optimization model for stochastic logistic problems. International Journal of Production Economics. 64. 1–3. 385–397. 10.1016/S0925-5273(99)00074-2. 2000.
- Strano. M. Optimization under uncertainty of sheet-metal-forming processes by the finite element method. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 220. 8. 1305–1315. 10.1243/09544054JEM480. 2006. 108843522.
- Bernardo. Fernando P.. Saraiva, Pedro M. . Robust optimization framework for process parameter and tolerance design. AIChE Journal. 1998. 44. 9. 2007–2017. 10.1002/aic.690440908. 10316/8195. free.
- Chu. Millie. Zinchenko, Yuriy . Henderson, Shane G . Sharpe, Michael B . Robust optimization for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning under uncertainty. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2005. 50. 23. 5463–5477. 10.1088/0031-9155/50/23/003. 16306645. 2005PMB....50.5463C . 15713904 .
- Verdu . S. . Poor . H. V. . 1984 . On Minimax Robustness: A general approach and applications . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory . 30 . 2. 328–340 . 10.1109/tit.1984.1056876. 10.1.1.132.837 .
- Kassam . S. A. . Poor . H. V. . 1985 . Robust Techniques for Signal Processing: A Survey . Proceedings of the IEEE . 73 . 3. 433–481 . 10.1109/proc.1985.13167. 2142/74118 . 30443041 . free .
- M. Danish Nisar. "Minimax Robustness in Signal Processing for Communications", Shaker Verlag,, August 2011.
- Ben-Tal A., El Ghaoui, L. and Nemirovski, A. (2009). Robust Optimization. Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics, Princeton University Press, 9-16.
- [Sven Leyffer|Leyffer S.]