For all the examples on this page, we assume that all parameters are deterministic except the right-hand-side vector, shown in the range F15:F19. The numbers given are the expected values but we add a random variation for each value that is distributed as a Normal variant with mean 0 and a standard deviation of 10.

On this page we investigate the wait-and-see policy in that the random variables are realized before the decision maker sets the solution vector x. The solution x is determined by the solution of the LP. This is not really a stochastic programming problem because there is no uncertainty when the decisions must be made. We might be interested, however, in the stochastic features of the optimum solution value and on the feasibility of the model when viewed before the random variables are realized. On this page we use the Monte Carlo simulation features of the Random Variables add-in to perform the analysis.

The Stochastic Model

The methods of this section are applied to an optimization model constructed with the math programming add-in. We have created the LP model above on the worksheet LP1.

To create a stochastic model that describes the random features of the situation, we choose Function from the Random Variables menu and fill in the Add Function dialog as below. We have specified LP/IP as the algorithm in the field at the bottom of the dialog. This means that the LP will be solved for each point of the sample space that is generated by the enumeration or simulation procedure. For the example we use the Simulate method.

Rows 28 through 30 generate the simulated values. The numbers in row 29 (now 0.5) will be replaced by uniformly distributed random numbers. The numbers in row 30 compute the simulated values based on the Monte Carlo method.

Rows 31, 32 and 33 describe the functions to be observed during the simulation. Cell G31 is the name. The function value in G32 is an equation that links to the LP objective in F4. The feasibility value in G33 is a logical statement that points to cell O4 (shown with the LP model above). That cell, filled by the LP/IP add-in, holds the word "Optimal" only when the model has a feasible solution. For each simulation these cells will hold the optimum LP value and an indication of feasibility. The particular solution shown has all random variables set to 0, their expected values. The solution for this sample point is the same as the deterministic solution.

The green cells in the range G34 through G38 hold the results of the simulation. These are filled in by the add-in. Cell 34 returns the proportion of the observations that are feasible. Cells G36 and G37 hold the mean and variance of the simulated function, the LP optimum value in this case. Only the results for feasible solutions are reported. Cell G38 holds the number of feasible solutions or the sample size of the mean and variance statistics immediately above. G39 holds a confidence level entered by the user, cell G40 holds a confidence interval computed from the statistics.

To simulate the model choose Moments from the Random Variables menu and set the number of simulation observations to 100. Larger values give more accurate results, but take more time. Each simulation iteration draws a random sample from each distribution. The values are reflected in the RHS vector, and the LP/IP algorithm solves the problem. The results of 100 observations are combined and placed on the form. The results begin in row 34 of the figure below. The numbers shown in rows 29 through 33 are for the final simulated observation of the random variables.

We have simulated 100 observations of the wait-and-see option. Even though the solution is optimum for each simulated RHS, the mean objective function (estimated at 122.7 in cell G36) is lower than the value when the RHS values were set to the expected values (125.6). This is a consequence of "Jensen's Inequality" (named after a different person than the author). The expected value solution will always have a higher objective function (when maximizing) than a solution that explicitly represents uncertainty.

All the observations in the sample of 100 were feasible for the example and the 90% confidence interval for the LP objective value is almost 2. The values of the solution variables, X1 through X10 are not reported on this form.

It is interesting to increase the standard deviation of the random variables to 30, thus increasing the variability of the RHS values. The simulated results are below. For this model, the solution is infeasible only if one of the RHS values is negative. With the data provided, the proportion of feasible solutions is 0.73. The mean objective value is decreased with significantly greater variance over the case when the standard deviation values were 10. The 90% confidence interval is now about 8.5. There is a price to pay for variability, even with the wait and see policy.