Dependent Samples in Empirical Estimation of Stochastic Programming Problems

Authors

  • Vlasta Kaňková Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Michal Houda Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17713/ajs.v35i2&3.373

Abstract

Stochastic optimization models are built with the assumption that the underlying probability measure is entirely known. This is not true in practice, however: empirical approximation or estimates are used instead. The question then arises if such inaccuracy does not perturb resulting solutions and optimal values. We measure the ”distance” between the probability
distributions by suitable metrics on the space of probability measures. It is known that, under certain assumptions, the stability of the stochastic optimization model is assured with respect to the selected metric, and, moreover, the empirical estimate of the unknown distribution has suitable convergence properties, including a sufficient rate of convergence. In the case of Kolmogorov metric, the convergence rate is known if the random sample
is independent and the probability measure is ”continuous”. In the case of Wasserstein (Mallows) metric, uniform distribution and independent random sample, the rate of convergence is the same in the case of the traditional uniform process and its limiting distribution is known; for other distributions, metrics, and the multidimensional case, the convergence properties and the rate of convergence have to be estimated e.g. by simulations. In our contribution, we show some numerical results for independent and dependent samples and make some backward interpretation of the results applied to stochastic programming.

References

Barrio, E. del, Giné, E., and Matrán, C. (1999). Central limit theorems for the Wasserstein distance between the empirical and the true distributions. The Annals of Probability, 27(2), 1009-1071.

Dai, L., Chen, C. H., and Birge, R. J. (2000). Convergence properties of two-stage stochastic programming. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 106(3), 489-509.

Houda, M. (2002). Probability metrics and the stability of stochastic programs with recourse. Bulletin of the Czech Econometric Society, 9(17), 65-77.

Kaňková, V. (1994a). A note on estimates in stochastic programming. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 56(1-2), 97-112.

Kaňková, V. (1994b). A note on relationship between distribution function estimation and estimation in stochastic programming. In Transactions of the 12th Prague Conference on Information Theory, Statistical Decision Functions and Random Processes

(p. 122-125). Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

Kaňková, V., and Houda, M. (2003). A note on quantitative stability and empirical estimates in stochastic programming. In U. Leopold-Wildburger, F. Rendl, and G. Wascher (Eds.), Operations Research Proceedings 2002 (p. 413-418). Berlin: Springer.

Rachev, S. T. (1991). Probability Metrics and the Stability of Stochastic Models. Chichester: Wiley.

Römisch, W. (2003). Stability of stochastic programming problems. In A. Ruszczynski and A. Shapiro (Eds.), Stochastic Programming. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science (Vol. 10, p. 483-554). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Römisch, W., and Schultz, R. (1993). Stability of solutions for stochastic programs with complete recourse. Mathematics of Operations Research, 18(3), 590-609.

Shorack, G. R., and Wellner, J. A. (1986). Empirical Processes with Applications to Statistics. New York: Wiley.

Wang, L., and Wang, J. (1999). Limit distribution of statistical estimates for stochastic programs with dependent samples. ZAMM Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 79(4), 257-266.

Yoshihara, K. (1992). Summation Theory for Weakly Dependent Sequences. Weakly Dependent Stochastic Sequences and their Applications (Vol. 1). Tokyo: Sanseido.

Downloads

Published

2016-04-03

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Dependent Samples in Empirical Estimation of Stochastic Programming Problems. (2016). Austrian Journal of Statistics, 35(2&3), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.17713/ajs.v35i2&3.373