Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Risk and complexity in scenario optimization

  • Full Length Paper
  • Series B
  • Published:
Mathematical Programming Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scenario optimization is a broad methodology to perform optimization based on empirical knowledge. One collects previous cases, called “scenarios”, for the set-up in which optimization is being performed, and makes a decision that is optimal for the cases that have been collected. For convex optimization, a solid theory has been developed that provides guarantees of performance, and constraint satisfaction, of the scenario solution. In this paper, we open a new direction of investigation: the risk that a performance is not achieved, or that constraints are violated, is studied jointly with the complexity (as precisely defined in the paper) of the solution. It is shown that the joint probability distribution of risk and complexity is concentrated in such a way that the complexity carries fundamental information to tightly judge the risk. This result is obtained without requiring extra knowledge on the underlying optimization problem than that carried by the scenarios; in particular, no extra knowledge on the distribution by which scenarios are generated is assumed, so that the result is broadly applicable. This deep-seated result unveils a fundamental and general structure of data-driven optimization and suggests practical approaches for risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. No limitations are imposed on \({\varDelta }\) like e.g. that \({\varDelta }\) is a subset of a Eucledian space or of a vector space, nor is \({\varDelta }\) endowed with a metric or a topology. \({\varDelta }\) is just a generic set that forms a probability space together with \(\mathcal {F}\) and \({\mathbb {P}}\). Hence, ideas like “the sample \(\delta _i\), \(i=1,\ldots ,N\), covers, or fills up, \({\varDelta }\)” are void of any meaning. This generality in the definition of \({\varDelta }\) is important for the widespread applicability of the theory.

  2. We assume that function \(\ell (v,\delta )\) is convex in v for any given value of \(\delta \), while its dependence on \(\delta \) is arbitrary.

  3. Throughout, we assume that a solution exists. If more than one solution exists, a solution is singled out by means of a convex tie-break rule according to the approach of [10].

  4. We remark that \(V(x^*_N)\) quantifies the risk, which refers to the chance-constrained feasibility, while the value is not at issue here.

  5. Similarly to problem (1), it is assumed that the problems obtained after removing one constraint from (1) admit a unique solution, possibly after breaking the tie by means of a convex tie-break rule according to the approach of [10].

  6. To this purpose, it is enough to eliminate one by one the constraints and recompute the solution, the support constraints are those whose elimination determines a change in the solution.

  7. These are the same empirical distributions as in Figs. 3 and 4 (in Figs. 3 and 4 only some values of k were displayed).

  8. \({{\mathcal {Z}}}\) can be any set, without any Euclidean structure. We change notation from \({{\mathcal {X}}}\) to \({{\mathcal {Z}}}\) because in some applications \({{\mathcal {Z}}}\) is the same as \({{\mathcal {X}}}\) augmented with extra elements; concrete examples of decision sets are provided in Sects. 5.1 and 5.2.

  9. Note that only the tie with respect to x is broken by \(t_1(x)\), \(t_2(x)\), \(t_3(x)\), .... On the other hand, for a given \(x^*_m\) the values of \(\xi _i\), \(i=1,\ldots ,m\), remain unambiguously determined at optimum by relation \(\xi ^*_{i,m} = f(x^*_m,\delta _i)\), so that no tie on \(\xi _i\), \(i=1,\ldots ,m\), can persist after the tie on x is broken.

  10. Intuitively, the proportion of violated constraints (empirical risk) is not a valid indicator of the true risk \(V(x^*_N)\) since optimization generates a bias towards larger risks by drifting the solution against the constraints. The excess with respect to the number of violated constraints that appears in the computation of \({\tilde{s}}^*_N\) captures this mechanism and offers one the possibility to obtain tight evaluations of the risk, as quantified by the lower and upper bounds in Eq. (19), independently of the problem under consideration.

  11. The increase is not always monotone.

  12. Other methods have been proposed in the literature to trade the risk for an improved cost. One method consists in allowing the solution to violate a preset proportion of the empirical constraints (chance-constrained problem over the empirical distribution). In the context of scenario optimization, this approach is described in [18], where practically useful, but untight, bounds on the risk are also derived. More generally, the problem of relating the empirical risk to chance-constrained feasibility is dealt with in many papers including [6, 7, 44, 57]. The problem of finding a solution that violates a preset proportion of the empirical constraints is a non-convex problem that is difficult to solve in general. The formulation in (14) is convex and this eases the problem of finding a solution. Interestingly, as already noted, this formulation is amenable to tight evaluations of the risk.

  13. For reproducibility, we inform the reader about the mechanism by which \(q_{j,k}(\delta )\) were generated. Let \(\delta =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\gamma _{1,1},\ldots ,\gamma _{50,1},\gamma _{1,2},\ldots ,\gamma _{50,2})\), where, for \(k=1,2\) and \(j=1,\ldots ,50\), \(\alpha _k \sim \mathcal {U}[10,50]\) (i.e., \(\alpha _k\) is uniformly distributed in [10, 50]), \(\gamma _{j,k} \sim {\mathcal {U}}[-2.5,2.5]\), and all these variables are independent one of the others. Then, \(q_{j,k}(\delta ) = (\alpha _k^{\frac{1}{4}} + \gamma _{j,k})^{-1}\), \(j=1,\ldots ,50\), \(k=1,2\). Moreover, in the simulation, we took \(a_1=a_2=1\).

  14. Notice that, strictly speaking, this choice of \(f(x,\delta )\) does not satisfy Assumption 6. Reason is that setting to zero \(f(x,\delta )\) when \(\sum _{j=1}^{50} q_{j,1}(\delta ) x_j - a_1\) and \(\sum _{j=1}^{50} q_{j,2}(\delta ) x_j - a_2\) are negative, as is done in (22), generates regions with positive volume in the domain in \( { {{\mathbb {R}}}^{50} } \) for x where \(f(x,\delta ) = 0\). However, an easy inspection of the derivation of Theorem 4 shows that the requirement of Assumption 6 that, for every x, \({\mathbb {P}}\{\delta : f(x,\delta ) = 0\} = 0\) can be relaxed to requiring that, for every x, \({\mathbb {P}}\{\delta : x \text{ is } \text{ on } \text{ the } \text{ boundary } \text{ of } \text{ the } \text{ constraint } \{f(x,\delta ) \le 0 \} \} = 0\), and the theory goes through unaltered with the only modifications that, throughout, “\(f(x,\delta ) = 0\)” becomes “x is on the boundary of the constraint \(\{f(x,\delta ) \le 0 \}\)”, “\(f(x,\delta ) < 0\)” becomes “x is in the interior of the constraint \(\{f(x,\delta ) \le 0 \}\)”, and “\(f(x,\delta ) \ge 0\)” becomes “x violates or is on the boundary of the constraint \(\{f(x,\delta ) \le 0 \}\)”. While we have preferred in the general presentation the simpler formulation of Assumption 6, this second formulation leads to zero volume regions in the domain in \( { {{\mathbb {R}}}^{50} } \) for x in the present example.

  15. Since the intervals in Fig. 12 are obtained by a repeated application of Theorem 4, the confidence that \({\underline{\epsilon }}({\tilde{s}}^*_{2000}) \le V(x^*_{2000}) \le {\overline{\epsilon }}({\tilde{s}}^*_{2000})\) for all the 22 values of \(\rho \) simultaneously is \(1-22\cdot \beta \).

  16. The reason for introducing H is that the theorem will be proven in a slightly more general form where H is any integer \(\ge 1\) and not just 3N. The choice \(H = 3N\) gives satisfactory evaluations in most cases, and this is why Theorem 2 was stated with \(H = 3N\). However, the extra generality allowed by other values of H can turn out to be useful to tighten the bounds \({\underline{\epsilon }}(\cdot )\) and \({\overline{\epsilon }}(\cdot )\) in some cases when N is not too large. This issue is not further discussed in this paper.

References

  1. Alamo, T., Tempo, R., Camacho, E.: A randomized strategy for probabilistic solutions of uncertain feasibility and optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54(11), 2545–2559 (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baronio, F., Baronio, M., Campi, M., Caré, A., Garatti, S.: Ventricular defribillation: classification with GEM and a roadmap for future investigations. In: Proceedings of the 56th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. Melbourne, Australia (2017)

  3. Bayraksan, G., Morton, D.: Assessing solution quality in stochastic programs. Math. Program. 108, 495–514 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayraksan, G., Morton, D.: Assessing solution quality in stochastic programs via sampling. In: Oskoorouchi, M. (ed.) Tutorials in Operations Research, pp. 102–122. Informs (2009)

  5. Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A.: On safe tractable approximations of chance-constrained linear matrix inequalities. Math. Oper. Res. 34(1), 1–25 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bertsimas, D., Gupta, V., Kallus, N.: Data-driven robust optimization. Math. Program. 167, 235–292 (2018)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bertsimas, D., Gupta, V., Kallus, N.: Robust sample average approximation. Math. Program. 171, 217–282 (2018)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bertsimas, D., Thiele, A.: Robust and data-driven optimization: modern decision-making under uncertainty. In: Tutorials on Operations Research. INFORMS (2006)

  9. Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Calafiore, G., Campi, M.: Uncertain convex programs: randomized solutions and confidence levels. Math. Program. 102(1), 25–46 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-003-0499-y

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Calafiore, G., Campi, M.: The scenario approach to robust control design. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 51(5), 742–753 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Calafiore, G., El Ghaoui, L.: On distributionally robust chance-constrained linear programs. Math. Program. 130(1), 1–22 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Carè, A., Ramponi, F.A., Campi, M.C.: A new classification algorithm with guaranteed sensitivity and specificity for medical applications. IEEE Control Syst. Lett. 2, 393–398 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Campi, M.: Classification with guaranteed probability of error. Mach. Learn. 80, 63–84 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Campi, M., Calafiore, G., Garatti, S.: Interval predictor models: identification and reliability. Automatica 45(2), 382–392 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2008.09.004

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Campi, M., Carè, A.: Random convex programs with \(l_1\)-regularization: sparsity and generalization. SIAM J. Control Optim. 51(5), 3532–3557 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Campi, M., Garatti, S.: The exact feasibility of randomized solutions of uncertain convex programs. SIAM J. Optim. 19(3), 1211–1230 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1137/07069821X

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Campi, M., Garatti, S.: A sampling-and-discarding approach to chance-constrained optimization: feasibility and optimality. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 148(2), 257–280 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Campi, M., Garatti, S.: Wait-and-judge scenario optimization. Math. Program. 167(1), 155–189 (2018)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Campi, M., Garatti, S., Prandini, M.: The scenario approach for systems and control design. Annu. Rev. Control 33(2), 149–157 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2009.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carè, A., Garatti, S., Campi, M.: FAST—fast algorithm for the scenario technique. Oper. Res. 62(3), 662–671 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Carè, A., Garatti, S., Campi, M.: Scenario min-max optimization and the risk of empirical costs. SIAM J. Optim. 25(4), 2061–2080 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Crespo, L., Giesy, D., Kenny, S.: Interval predictor models with a formal characterization of uncertainty and reliability. In: Proceedings of the 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 5991–5996. Los Angeles, CA, USA (2014)

  24. Crespo, L., Kenny, S., Giesy, D.: Random predictor models for rigorous uncertainty quantification. Int. J. Uncertain. Quantif. 5(5), 469–489 (2015)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Crespo, L., Kenny, S., Giesy, D., Norman, R., Blattnig, S.: Application of interval predictor models to space radiation shielding. In: Proceedings of the 18th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference. San Diego, CA, USA (2016)

  26. de Mello, T.H.: Variable-sample methods for stochastic optimization. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 13, 108–133 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. de Mello, T.H., Bayraksan, G.: Monte Carlo sampling-based methods for stochastic optimization. Surv. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. 19(1), 56–85 (2014)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Delage, E., Ye, Y.: Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Oper. Res. 58(3), 596–612 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Dentcheva, D.: Optimization models with probabilistic constraints. In: Calafiore, G., Dabbene, F. (eds.) Probabilistic and Randomized Methods for Design Under Uncertainty. Springer, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Erdogan, E., Iyengar, G.: Ambiguous chance constrained problems and robust optimization. Math. Program. 107, 37–61 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Esfahani, P., Sutter, T., Lygeros, J.: Performance bounds for the scenario approach and an extension to a class of non-convex programs. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60(1), 46–58 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Esfahani, P.M., Kuhn, D.: Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Math. Program. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-017-1172-1

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Fabozzi, F., Kolm, P., Pachamanova, D., Focardi, S.: Robust Portfolio Optimization and Management. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Garatti, S., Campi, M.: Modulating robustness in control design: principles and algorithms. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 33(2), 36–51 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2012.2234964

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Goh, J., Sim, M.: Distributionally robust optimization and its tractable approximations. Oper. Res. 58, 902–917 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Grammatico, S., Zhang, X., Margellos, K., Goulart, P., Lygeros, J.: A scenario approach for non-convex control design. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 61(2), 334–345 (2016)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Gupta, V.: Near-optimal ambiguity sets for distributionally robust optimization. Manag. Sci. 65(9), 4242–4260 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hanasusanto, G., Roitch, V., Kuhn, D., Wiesemann, W.: A distributionally robust perspective on uncertainty quantification and chance constrained programming. Math. Program. 151(1), 35–62 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Hong, L., Hu, Z., Liu, G.: Monte Carlo methods for value-at-risk and conditional value-at-risk: a review. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 24(4), 22:1–22:37 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Hu, Z., Hong, L.: Kullback–Leiber divergence constrained distributionally robust optimization (2013). http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2012/11/3677.html

  41. Jiang, R., Guan, Y.: Data-driven chance constrained stochastic program. Math. Program. 158(1–2), 291–327 (2016)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Lam, H.: Recovering best statistical guarantees via the empirical divergence-based distributionally robust optimization. Oper. Res. 67(4), 1090–1105 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Linderoth, J., Shapiro, A., Wright, S.: The empirical behavior of sampling methods for stochastic programming. Ann. Oper. Res. 142, 215–241 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Luedtke, J., Ahmed, S.: A sample approximation approach for optimization with probabilistic constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 19, 674–699 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1137/070702928

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Luedtke, J., Ahmed, S., Nemhauser, G.: An integer programming approach for linear programs with probabilistic constraints. Math. Program. 122(2), 247–272 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Mak, W., Morton, D., Wood, R.: Monte Carlo bounding techniques for determing solution quality in stochastic programs. Oper. Res. Lett. 24, 47–56 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Margellos, K., Prandini, M., Lygeros, J.: On the connection between compression learning and scenario based single-stage and cascading optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60(10), 2716–2721 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Nemirovski, A.: On safe tractable approximations of chance constraints. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219, 707–718 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Nemirovski, A., Shapiro, A.: Convex approximations of chance constrained programs. SIAM J. Optim. 17(4), 969–996 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1137/050622328

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Nemirovski, A., Shapiro, A.: Scenario approximations of chance constraints. In: Calafiore, G., Dabbene, F. (eds.) Probabilistic and Randomized Methods for Design Under Uncertainty. Springer, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pagnoncelli, B., Ahmed, S., Shapiro, A.: Sample average approximation method for chance constrained programming: theory and applications. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 142(2), 399–416 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Pagnoncelli, B., Reich, D., Campi, M.: Risk-return trade-off with the scenario approach in practice: a case study in portfolio selection. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 155(2), 707–722 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Pagnoncelli, B., Vanduffel, S.: A provisioning problem with stochastic payments. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 221(2), 445–453 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Pflug, G., Wozabal, D.: Ambiguity in portfolio selection. Quant. Finance 7, 435–442 (2007)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Schildbach, G., Fagiano, L., Frei, C., Morari, M.: The scenario approach for stochastic model predictive control with bounds on closed-loop constraint violations. Automatica 50(12), 3009–3018 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Schildbach, G., Fagiano, L., Morari, M.: Randomized solutions to convex programs with multiple chance constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 23(4), 2479–2501 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Shapiro, A.: Monte–Carlo sampling methods. In: Ruszczyński, A., Shapiro, A. (eds.) Stochastic Programming, volume 10 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. Elsevier, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D., Ruszczyński, A.: Lectures on Stochastic Programming: Modeling and Theory. MPS-SIAM, Philadelphia (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Shiryaev, A.: Probability. Springer, New York (1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Thiele, A.: Robust stochastic programming with uncertain probabilities. IMA J. Manag. Math. 19(3), 289–321 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpm011

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Van Parys, B., Esfahani, P., Kuhn, D.: From data to decisions: distributionally robust optimization is optimal. (2017). arxiv:1704.04118

  62. Vayanos, P., Kuhn, D., Rustem, B.: A constraint sampling approach for multistage robust optimization. Automatica 48(3), 459–471 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Welsh, J., Kong, H.: Robust experiment design through randomisation with chance constraints. In: Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World Congress, Milan, Italy (2011)

  64. Welsh, J., Rojas, C.: A scenario based approach to robust experiment design. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFAC Symposium on System Identification. Saint-Malo, France (2009)

  65. Wieseman, W., Kuhn, D., Sim, M.: Distributionally robust convex optimization. Oper. Res. 62, 1358–1376 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  66. Wozabal, D.: A framework for optimization under ambiguity. Ann. Oper. Res. 193, 21–47 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang, X., Grammatico, S., Schildbach, G., Goulart, P., Lygeros, J.: On the sample size of random convex programs with structured dependence on the uncertainty. Automatica 60, 182–188 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhou, Z., Cogill, R.: Reliable approximations of probability-constrained stochastic linear-quadratic control. Automatica 49(8), 2435–2439 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Zymler, S., Kuhn, D., Rustem, B.: Distributionally robust joint chance constraints with second-order moment information. Math. Program. 137(1–2), 167–198 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133, Milan, Italy

    S. Garatti

  2. Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Università di Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy

    M. C. Campi

Authors
  1. S. Garatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. C. Campi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. C. Campi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This research has been supported by the University of Brescia under the Project CLAFITE.

MATLAB code

MATLAB code

The following MATLAB code returns \({\underline{\epsilon }}(k)\) and \({\overline{\epsilon }}(k)\) for user assigned k, N, and \(\beta \).

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garatti, S., Campi, M.C. Risk and complexity in scenario optimization. Math. Program. 191, 243–279 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-019-01446-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-019-01446-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification