Using stochastic dual dynamic programming in problems with multiple near‐optimal solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stochastic dual dynamic programming (SDDP) is one of the few algorithmic solutions available to optimize large‐scale water resources systems while explicitly considering uncertainty. This paper explores the consequences of, and proposes a solution to, the existence of multiple near‐optimal solutions (MNOS) when using SDDP for mid or long‐term river basin management. These issues arise when the optimization problem cannot be properly parametrized due to poorly defined and/or unavailable data sets. This work shows that when MNOS exists, (1) SDDP explores more than one solution trajectory in the same run, suggesting different decisions in distinct simulation years even for the same point in the state‐space, and (2) SDDP is shown to be very sensitive to even minimal variations of the problem setting, e.g., initial conditions—we call this “algorithmic chaos.” Results that exhibit such sensitivity are difficult to interpret. This work proposes a reoptimization method, which simulates system decisions by periodically applying cuts from one given year from the SDDP run. Simulation results obtained through this reoptimization approach are steady state solutions, meaning that their probability distributions are stable from year to year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".