The Value of Randomized Solutions in Mixed-Integer Distributionally Robust Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized decision making refers to the process of making decisions randomly according to the outcome of an independent randomization device, such as a dice roll or a coin flip. The concept is unconventional, and somehow counterintuitive, in the domain of mathematical programming, in which deterministic decisions are usually sought even when the problem parameters are uncertain. However, it has recently been shown that using a randomized, rather than a deterministic, strategy in nonconvex distributionally robust optimization (DRO) problems can lead to improvements in their objective values. It is still unknown, though, what is the magnitude of improvement that can be attained through randomization or how to numerically find the optimal randomized strategy. In this paper, we study the value of randomization in mixed-integer DRO problems and show that it is bounded by the improvement achievable through its continuous relaxation. Furthermore, we identify conditions under which the bound is tight. We then develop algorithmic procedures, based on column generation, for solving both single- and two-stage linear DRO problems with randomization that can be used with both moment-based and Wasserstein ambiguity sets. Finally, we apply the proposed algorithm to solve three classical discrete DRO problems: the assignment problem, the uncapacitated facility location problem, and the capacitated facility location problem and report numerical results that show the quality of our bounds, the computational efficiency of the proposed solution method, and the magnitude of performance improvement achieved by randomized decisions. Summary of Contribution: In this paper, we present both theoretical results and algorithmic tools to identify optimal randomized strategies for discrete distributionally robust optimization (DRO) problems and evaluate the performance improvements that can be achieved when using them rather than classical deterministic strategies. On the theory side, we provide improvement bounds based on continuous relaxation and identify the conditions under which these bound are tight. On the algorithmic side, we propose a finitely convergent, two-layer, column-generation algorithm that iterates between identifying feasible solutions and finding extreme realizations of the uncertain parameter. The proposed algorithm was implemented to solve distributionally robust stochastic versions of three classical optimization problems and extensive numerical results are reported. The paper extends a previous, purely theoretical work of the first author on the idea of randomized strategies in nonconvex DRO problems by providing useful bounds and algorithms to solve this kind of problems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".