Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing stage-scenario with nodal formulation for multistage stochastic problems

  • Educational Paper
  • Published:
4OR Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To solve real life problems under uncertainty in Economics, Finance, Energy, Transportation and Logistics, the use of stochastic optimization is widely accepted and appreciated. However, the nature of stochastic programming leads to a conflict between adaptability to reality and tractability. To formulate a multistage stochastic model, two types of formulations are typically adopted: the so-called stage-scenario formulation named also formulation with explicit non-anticipativity constraints and the so-called nodal formulation named also formulation with implicit non-anticipativity constraints. Both of them have advantages and disadvantages. This work aims at helping the scholars and practitioners to understand the two types of notation and, in particular, to reformulate with the nodal formulation a model that was originally defined with the stage-scenario formulation presenting this implementation in the algebraic language GAMS. In addition, this work presents an empirical analysis applying the two formulations both without any further decomposition to perform a fair comparison. In this way, we show that the difficulties to implement the model with the nodal formulation are somehow reworded making the problem tractable without any decomposition algorithm. Still, we remark that in some other applications the stage-scenario formulation could be more helpful to understand the structure of the problem since it allows to relax the non-anticipativity constraints.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. Building the set MancsN(M,N) we need a temporary variable (tmp) to ensure a correct assignment of tuple (mn).

References

  • Baringo L, Conejo AJ (2012) Wind power investment: a benders decomposition approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(1):433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baringo L, Conejo A (2013a) Correlated wind-power production and electric load scenarios for investment decisions. Appl Energy 101:475–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baringo L, Conejo AJ (2013b) Risk-constrained multi-stage wind power investment. IEEE Trans Power Syst 28(1):401–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro D, Canestrelli E et al (2006) Time and nodal decomposition with implicit non-anticipativity constraints in dynamic portfolio optimization. Math Methods Econ Finance 1:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Birge JR, Louveaux F (2011) Introduction to stochastic programming. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cariño DR, Kent T, Myers DH, Stacy C, Sylvanus M, Turner AL, Watanabe K, Ziemba WT (1994) The Russell-Yasuda Kasai model: an asset/liability model for a Japanese insurance company using multistage stochastic programming. Interfaces 24(1):29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conejo AJ, Carrión M, Morales JM (2010) Decision making under uncertainty in electricity markets, vol 1. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Consigli G, Dempster MAH (1998) Dynamic stochastic programming for asset-liability management. Ann Oper Res 81:131–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consigli G, di Tria M, Gaffo M, Iaquinta G, Moriggia V, Uristani A (2011) Dynamic portfolio management for property and casualty insurance. In: Stochastic optimization methods in finance and energy. Springer, pp 99–124

  • Consigli G, Moriggia V, Benincasa E, Landoni G, Petronio F, Vitali S, di Tria M, Skoric M, Uristani A (2018) Optimal multistage defined-benefit pension fund management. In: Handbook of recent advances in commodity and financial modeling. Springer, pp 267–296

  • Domínguez R, Conejo AJ, Carrión M (2016) Investing in generation capacity: a multi-stage linear-decision-rule approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst 31(6):4784–4794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupačová J, Bertocchi M, Moriggia V (2009) Testing the structure of multistage stochastic programs. Comput Manag Sci 6(2):161–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupačová J, Hurt J, Štěpán J (2002) Stochastic modeling in economics and finance, applied optimization. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupačová J, Polívka J (2009) Asset-liability management for Czech pension funds using stochastic programming. Ann Oper Res 165(1):5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escudero LF, Garín MA, Unzueta A (2016) Cluster lagrangean decomposition in multistage stochastic optimization. Comput Oper Res 67:48–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire L, Street A, Lima DA, Barroso LA (2015) A hybrid milp and benders decomposition approach to find the nucleolus quota allocation for a renewable energy portfolio. IEEE Trans Power Syst 30(6):3265–3275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiller RS, Shapiro JF (1989) Stochastic programming models for asset/liability management problems. International Financial Services Research Center, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Hochreiter R, Pflug GC, Wozabal D (2006) Multi-stage stochastic electricity portfolio optimization in liberalized energy markets. In: System modeling and optimization. Springer, pp 219–226

  • Huang K, Ahmed S (2008) On a multi-stage stochastic programming model for inventory planning. INFOR 46(3):155–163

    Google Scholar 

  • IBM (2015) The ilog cplex 24.6.1. ilog.com/products/cplex/

  • IEEE (1996) Reliability test system task force. IEEE Trans Power Syst 14(3):1010–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopa M, Moriggia V, Vitali S (2018) Individual optimal pension allocation under stochastic dominance constraints. Ann Oper Res 260(1–2):255–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouwenberg R (2001) Scenario generation and stochastic programming models for asset liability management. Eur J Oper Res 134(2):279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Sioshansi R, Conejo AJ (2018) Multistage stochastic investment planning with multiscale representation of uncertainties and decisions. IEEE Trans Power Syst 33(1):781–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriggia V, Consigli G, Iaquinta G (2013) Optimal stochastic programming-based personal financial planning with intermediate and long term goals. Stochas Prog Appl Finance Energy Plan Logist 4:43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriggia V, Kopa M, Vitali S (2019) Pension fund management with hedging derivatives, stochastic dominance and nodal contamination. Omega 87:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munoz FD, Hobbs BF, Watson J-P (2016) New bounding and decomposition approaches for milp investment problems: Multi-area transmission and generation planning under policy constraints. Eur J Oper Res 248(3):888–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pflug GC, Pichler A (2014) Multistage stochastic optimization. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WB (2014) Clearing the jungle of stochastic optimization. In: Bridging data and decisions. Informs, pp 109–137

  • Rockafellar RT, Wets RJ-B (1991) Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty. Math Oper Res 16(1):119–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal RE (2004) Gams–a user’s guide

  • Shapiro A, Dentcheva D, Ruszczyński A (2009) Lectures on stochastic programming: modeling and theory. SIAM

  • Shapiro JF (1988) Stochastic programming models for dedicated portfolio selection. In: Mathematical models for decision support. Springer, pp 587–611

  • Vitali S, Moriggia V, Kopa M (2017) Optimal pension fund composition for an italian private pension plan sponsor. Comput Manag Sci 14(1):135–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziemba WT et al (2003) The stochastic programming approach to asset, liability, and wealth management. Scorpion Publications, Research Foundation of AIMR

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research of Sebastiano Vitali was supported by the Czech Science Foundation project GAČR No. 19-28231X and by MIUR-ex60% 2020 sci.resp. Sebastiano Vitali. The research was partially supported by MIUR-ex60% 2019 and by MIUR-ex60% 2020 sci.resp. Vittorio Moriggia. Ruth Dominguez was partly supported by Univ. of Bergamo STaRS 2019 - Second Tranche and Univ. of Bergamo STaRS 2020 - Action 2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vittorio Moriggia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vitali, S., Domínguez, R. & Moriggia, V. Comparing stage-scenario with nodal formulation for multistage stochastic problems. 4OR-Q J Oper Res 19, 613–631 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-020-00462-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-020-00462-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation