Evolutionary Optimization for Decision Making
under Uncertainty
Ronald Hochreiter

arXiv:1401.4696v1 [] 19 Jan 2014

May 2011
Abstract
Optimizing decision problems under uncertainty can be done using a variety of solution methods. Soft computing and heuristic approaches tend to
be powerful for solving such problems. In this overview article, we survey
Evolutionary Optimization techniques to solve Stochastic Programming
problems - both for the single-stage and multi-stage case.

Keywords: Optimization under Uncertainty, Optimal Decision Making, Evolutionary Optimization, Stochastic Programming, Multi-stage Stochastic Programming.

1

Introduction

There are many approaches towards solving decision problems under uncertainty. Throughout this paper, we will focus on solving Stochastic Programming problems - both the classical single-stage as well as the multi-stage case.
This article intends to provide ideas on how to use Evolutionary Optimization
techniques to solve this class of optimization problems.
To summarize the concept of Stochastic Programming, we will refer to the
summary of [10]: consider a deterministic decision optimization problem, where
a decision maker aims at finding an optimal (numerical) decision x ∈ Rn by minimizing a deterministic cost function f (·) (or by maximizing a profit function
respectively) given a set X of constraints, which generally consists of various
physical, organizational, and regulatory restrictions. The mathematical formulation of this problem can be simplified to the formulation shown in Equ. (1).
optimize x : f (x)
subject to
x ∈ X.

(1)

During the 1950s Stochastic Programming was initiated by Dantzig [5] and
Beale [2]. The idea is to replace deterministic parameters by probability distributions on some probability space (Ω, F, P), which will be denoted by Ξ in
the following, and to optimize a stochastic cost (or profit) function f (·, ·) over
some probability functional F. A common choice regarding this functional is
the expectation E. As Rockafellar [25] points out, expectations are only suitable for situations where the interest lies in long-range operation, and stochastic
ups and downs can safely average out, which is not the case e.g. for managing
financial risks. The recent progress of unifying probabilistic risk measures, as
1

presented in the seminal paper by Artzner et al. [1] on coherent risk measures,
motivated for using probability functionals based on risk measures. See the
book [23] for more details on modeling, measuring, and managing risk for this
class of optimization applications. A different view on integration of risk measures using the concept of deviation measures is shown in [26]. In summary, the
resulting mathematical meta-formulation of a stochastic program for arbitrary
probability functionals is shown in Equ. (2).
optimize x : F(f (x, Ξ))
subject to
(x, Ξ) ∈ X .

(2)

However, a concrete reformulation of this meta-model into some model,
which can be solved with a numerical optimizer depends to a high degree on
the chosen probability functional, as well as on the structure of the underlying
probability space.
The interested reader is referred to [27] for a theoretical overview of the area
of Stochastic Programming, and to [35] for Stochastic Programming languages,
environments, and applications. Interestingly, evolutionary approaches have not
been applied to a wide range of real stochastic programming problems so far,
only scarce examples are available, e.g. recent works in the field of chemical
batch processing, see [34] and [31].
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly describes the heuristic
(soft computing) approach, which was chosen to solve the stochastic programs.
Section 3 and Section 4 consider the single-stage and the multi-stage case respectively. In both Sections the optimization as well as the scenario generation
aspect will be discussed. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2

Evolutionary stochastic optimization

All stochastic optimization problems throughout this paper will be solved by
adapting a standard Evolutionary Optimization algorithm, e.g. as surveyed by
[3] and summarized below, to handle the stochastic meta-model directly without
complex reformulations.
P ← GenerateInitialP opulation
Evaluate(P )
while termination conditions not met do
P 0 ← Recombine(P )
P 00 ← M utate(P 0 )
Evaluate(P 00 )
P ← Select(P ∪ P 00 )
end while
As mentioned above, this meta-formulation of Evolutionary Optimization
can be applied to the meta-formulation of Stochastic Programming shown in
Equ. (2) in different ways. We consider the case of finite, discrete scenario sets
in this paper. This is not a serious restriction as many real-world problems can
be satisfyingly described with such sets. In addition, analytical solutions and
continuous descriptions of the uncertainty often imply a gross underestimation
of the complexity of the respective problem.
2

3

Single-stage stochastic optimization

In single-stage stochastic optimization, the input is given by a multi-variate
probability distribution - a discrete one in our special application-related approach. In the following, issues raised by using Evolutionary Optimization techniques are shown using the well-known application of financial risk-return portfolio selection. In a second step, scenario generation for the single-stage case is
boiled down to being solvable using an evolutionary approach.

3.1

Single-stage optimization: Portfolio selection

An ideal application example is financial risk-return portfolio optimization. For
various reasons, this optimization problem naturally fits into the general problem structure usually handled with evolutionary techniques. Therefore, evolutionary approaches have been successfully applied to different classes of portfolio
optimization problems, see e.g. [29], [28], [30], [8], [17], as well as the references
therein, or refer to [18]. Some of the approaches mention the field of Stochastic
Programming explicitly, e.g. [32], and [36].
The classical bi-criteria portfolio optimization problem based on Markowitz
[19] can be summarized as follows: An investor has to choose a portfolio from a
set of (financial) assets A with finite cardinality a = |A| to invest her available
budget. The bi-criteria problem stems from the fact that the investor aims
at maximizing her return while aiming at minimizing the risk of the chosen
portfolio at the same time.
In the single-stage stochastic programming case, the underlying uncertainty
is represented as a multi-variate probability distribution on the respective probability space. The distribution may either be continuous or discrete. The discretized probability distribution, which is used to compute the optimal decision
is called scenario set. This discrete set of scenarios S has finite cardinality
s =P
|S|, where each si is equipped with a non-negative probability pi ≥ 0,
s
and j=1 pj = 1. From the financial market viewpoint, each scenario contains
one possible set of joint future returns of all a assets under consideration for
the portfolio. Using the terminology of Markowitz, each scenario contains the
discounted anticipated return of each asset.
Let x ∈ Ra be some
P portfolio. Without loss of generality, we use budget
normalization, i.e.
a∈A xa = 1. Each component xi of the portfolio vector
denotes the fraction of the available budget B invested into the respective asset
i. We may now rewrite the scenario set S as a matrix S to calculate the discrete
Profit & Loss (P&L) distribution ` for some portfolio x, which is simply the
cross product `x = x, S . We will denote ` the loss distribution in the following.
Finally, let x∗ρ ∈ Ra denote the optimal portfolio given some risk measure ρ and
`∗ρ denote the respective ρ-optimal discrete loss distribution.
While this model clearly represents a multi-criteria optimization model, we
apply a criteria-weighted model, where an additional risk-aversion parameter κ
is defined, i.e.
maximize x : E(`x ) − κρ(`x ),
(3)
subject to
x ∈ X.
An important fact is that this problem already shows the issue that one
really has to care about the most is the genotype-phenotype encoding. The most
straightforward approach to design a usable genotype-phenotype representation
3

of the portfolio selection problem is to use a vector of real values between 0
and 1 and normalize the resulting vector to the sum of the available budget, i.e.
in the most simple case to a budget of 1. However, it can be shown that this
approach rarely leads to stable solutions, i.e. two runs almost never converge
to the same portfolio composition, see also [12].
Hence, we need a special genetic encoding of a portfolio, see [29]. Each gene
thereby consists of two parts: One that determines the amount of budget to
be distributed to each selected asset and one part which determines in which
assets to invest. The first part g1 consists of a predefined number b of real values
between 0 and 1 and the second part g2 is encoded as a bit-string of the size of
the amount of assets.
Example (from [12]). Let us define a bucket size of b = 10 and consider that
want to select the optimal portfolio out of a = 5 assets. A random chromosome
with a fixed number of 3 asset picks may then consist of the following two parts
g1 and g2 .
g1 = (0.4893, 0.3377, 0.9001, 0.3692, 0.1112, 0.7803, 0.3897, 0.2417, 0.4039, 0.0965)
g2 = (1, 1, 0, 0, 1)
If we re-map these two parts, we receive the following portfolio x
x = (0.3, 0.5, 0, 0, 0.2),
which is a valid portfolio composition, and can be used to calculate the loss
function and to conduct a full evaluation of the respective portfolio optimization
formulation within the evolutionary optimization process.
With this Evolutionary Optimization strategy a full-fledged portfolio optimization tool for a plethora of risk measures can be created, as the evolutionary approach only needs to evaluate the risk and not directly optimize over
the complete (probably non-convex) problem. Furthermore, all kinds of constraints, even non-convex ones, may be included. Constraint handling can be
easily added using a penalty structure within the objective function evaluation.

3.2

Single-stage scenario generation

The problem of single-stage scenario generation, i.e. an optimal approximation
of a multi-variate probability distribution can be done via various sampling as
well as clustering techniques. Optimal single-stage approximation have been
done by using e.g. Principal Component Analysis (see e.g. [33]), K-Means
clustering (see e.g. [14]), or moment matching ([15]). The result is directly
affected by the chosen approximation method - both a distance and a heuristic
needs to be specified.
Of course, this problem can be solved with Evolutionary Optimization techniques as well. Consider the following example (from [13]) of a full-fledged
scenario generation procedure: let’s assume that we do have 10 input scenarios
(asset returns), each equipped with the same probability p = 0.1, which might
be the output of some sophisticated asset price sampling procedure, e.g.
(0.017, −0.023, −0.008, −0.022, −0.019, 0.024, 0.016, −0.006, 0.032, −0.023).

4

We want to separate those values optimally into 2 clusters, which then represent
our output scenarios and take a random chromosome, which might look as
follows:
(0.4387, 0.3816, 0.7655, 0.7952, 0.1869, 0.4898, 0.4456, 0.6463, 0.7094, 0.7547)
If we map this vector to represent 2 centers we obtain: (1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2).
Now we need to calculate a center value, e.g. the mean, and have to calculate
the distance for each value of each cluster to its center, e.g. we obtain center
means (0.0032, −0.0055), which represent the resulting scenarios, each with a
probability of 0.5. The l1 distance for each cluster is (0.0975, 0.0750), so the
objective function value is 0.1725. Now flip-mutate chromosome 9, i.e. (1 −
0.7094) = 0.2906, such that input scenario 9 (return = 0.032) will now be part
of cluster 1 instead of cluster 2. We obtain new scenarios (0.0080, −0.0149) with
probabilities (0.6, 0.4). The objective function value is 0.1475 (or 0.1646 if you
weight the distances with the corresponding output scenario probability), i.e.
this mutation led to a better objective value.

3.3

Wrapping up the single-stage case

In this Section we have shown that Evolutionary Optimization can be conveniently be applied to single-stage stochastic optimization problems - both to the
solution of decision models as well as to the creation of scenario sets, i.e. for the
process of scenario generation. However, one has to be careful with choosing
an appropriate genotype-phenotype representation, as the most straightforward
approach might not lead to a stable solution.

4

Multi-stage stochastic optimization

To summarize the case of multi-stage stochastic optimization, we base the following summary on [11]: we consider algorithmic issues of the computation of
multi-stage scenario-based stochastic decision processes for decision optimization models under uncertainty. We consider that given a multi-stage stochastic
programming problem specific discrete-time stochastic process on the decision
horizon t = 1, . . . , T , a decision maker observes the realization of this random
process ξt at each decision stage t, and takes a decision xt based on all observed
values up to t (ξ1 , . . . , ξt ). Let there now be a sequence of decisions x1 , . . . , xT .
At the terminal stage T we observe a sequence of decisions x = (x1 , . . . , xT )
with realizations ξ = (ξ1 , . . . , ξT ), which lead to cost f (x, ξ) (or likewise profit).
The stochastic optimization task is to find the sequence of decisions x(ξ), which
minimizes some probability functional (most commonly the expectation, a risk
measure, or a combination of these two) of the respective cost function f (x(ξ), ξ)
- see e.g. [7] for a classification of risk measures in this context.
We consider the multi-stage case in such a way that there is at least one
intermediary stage between root and terminal stage, i.e. T > 2. Unfortunately,
the topic of scenario generation is not sufficiently treated in most text books on
stochastic programming. Let us consider multi-stage stochastic programming

5

problems as defined in Equ. (4).

minimize x : F f (x(ξ), ξ)
subject to
(x(ξ), ξ) ∈ X
x∈N

(4)

The multi-variate, multi-stage stochastic process ξ describes the future uncertainty, i.e. the subjective part of the stochastic program, and the constraint
set X defines feasible combinations of x and ξ. This constraint set is used to
model the underlying real-world decision problem. Furthermore, a set of nonanticipativity constraints N , consisting of functions ξ 7→ x which make sure
that xt is only based on realizations up to stage t (ξ1 , . . . , ξt ), is necessary. To
solve multi-stage programs with numerical optimization solvers, the underlying
stochastic process has to be discretized into a scenario tree, and this scenario
tree approximation will inherently fulfill these non-anticipativity constraints.
Two issues negatively affect the application of multi-stage stochastic programs for real-world decision problems: First, modeling the underlying decision
problem is a non-trivial task. Multi-stage optimization models and stochastic
scenario models require stable scenario tree handling procedures, which are considered to be too cumbersome to be applied to real-world applications, and the
communication of tree-based models to non-experts is complicated. Secondly,
modeling the underlying uncertainty is complex and messy. As discussed above,
a good discrete-time, discrete-space scenario tree approximation of the underlying stochastic process has to be generated in order to numerically compute a
solution and the quality of the scenario model severely affects the quality of the
solution.

4.1

Solving the scenario tree optimization problem

The quality of the scenario tree severely affects the quality of the solution of the
multi-stage stochastic decision model, such that any approximation should be
done in consideration of optimality criteria, i.e. before a stochastic optimization
model is solved, a scenario optimization problem has to be solved independently
of the optimization model. It should be noted, that there are also scenario generation approaches where the generation is not decoupled from the optimization
procedure, see e.g. [4]. A major drawback is that these methods are often limited to a certain restricted set of models, and cannot be generalized easily.
In the context of separated scenario optimization, optimality can be defined
as the minimization of the distance between the original (continuous or highly
discrete) stochastic process and the approximated scenario tree. Choosing an
appropriate distance may be based on subjective taste, e.g. Moment Matching
as proposed by [15], selected due to theoretical stability considerations (see [24]
and [9]), which leads to probability metric minimization problems as shown by
[22] and [6], or it may be predetermined by chosen approximation method, e.g.
by using different sampling schemes like QMC in [21] or RQMC in [16], see also
[20]. It is important to remark that once the appropriate distance has been
selected, an appropriate heuristic to approximate the chosen distance has to be
applied, which affects the result significantly. The real algorithmic challenge
of multi-stage scenario generation is caring about the tree structure while still
minimizing the distance. Only in rare cases, this problem can be solved without
heuristics.
6

The following evolutionary approach has been presented by [13]. We assume
that there is a finite set S of multi-stage, multi-variate scenario paths, which are
sampled using the preferred scenario sampling engine selected by the decision
taker. Stages will be denoted by t = 1, . . . , T where t = 1 represents the (deterministic) root stage (root node), and T denotes the terminal stage. Therefore,
the input consists of a scenario path matrix of size |S| × (T − 1). Furthermore,
the desired number of nodes of the tree in each stage is required, i.e. a vector n
of size (T − 1).
We will focus on the uni-variate case. However, the extension to the multivariate case does not pose any structural difficulties besides that a dimensionweighting function for calculating the total distance on which the optimality of
the scenario tree approximation is based on has to be defined.
A crucial part in designing a multi-stage scenario tree generator based on
evolutionary techniques is finding a scalable genotype representation of a tree,
as this is always the case for Evolutionary Optimization approaches - specifically
both in terms of the numbers of stages as well as the number of input scenarios.
The approach surveyed here is using a real-valued vector in the range [0, 1] and
mapping it to a scenario tree given the respective node format n. The length
of the vector is equal to the number of input scenarios s = |S| plus the number
of terminal nodes nT . Thus, the presented algorithm is somewhat limited by
the number of input scenarios. This means that input scenarios should not
simply be a standard set of mindlessly sampled scenario paths, but rather a
thoughtfully simulated view on the future uncertainty. This should not be seen
as a drawback, as it draws attention to this often neglected part of the decision
optimization process.
To map the real-valued vector to a scenario tree, which can be used for
a subsequent stochastic optimization, two steps have to be fulfilled. First, the
real-valued numbers are mapped to their respective node-set given the structure
n of the tree, and secondly, values have to be assigned to the nodes. It should
be noted, that a random chromosome does not necessarily lead to a valid tree.
This is the case if the number of mapped nodes is lower than the number of
nodes necessary given by nt of the respective stage t. If an uniform random
variable generator and a thoughtful node structure is used, which depends on
the number of input scenarios, invalid trees should not appear frequently, and
can be easily discarded if they do appear during the Evolutionary Optimization
process.
We may now conveniently use the Evolutionary Optimization clustering
strategy, which has been shown for creating single-stage scenarios above. This
approach seems to be rather trivial for the single-stage case, but this simple
approach leads to a powerful method for the tedious task of constructing multistage scenario trees for stochastic programming problems, because the nested
probability structure of the stochastic process is implicitly generated.
For multi-stage trees, a crucial point is finding a representative value for the
node-sets determined in the first step of the mapping. There exists a range of
methods, which can be used for the determination of centers, i.e. mapping all
values of a node-sets to one node. The distance of the approximation, which is
used for the calculation of the objective function, will also be affected by this
method. A straight-forward solution is to use the median of the values - see [13]
for other methods and their differences. Fig. 1 shows an example of the algorithm, i.e. 200 sampled paths are used to create a multi-stage [1, 10, 40] scenario
7

1.04

1.025

1.02

1.03

1.015
1.02
1.01
Value

Value

1.01
1.005

1
1
0.99
0.995

0.98

0.97

0.99

1

2
Stage

0.985

3

1

2
Stage

3

Figure 1: Input scenarios (n = 200) (left) and a scenario tree with n = [10, 40]
(right).
tree. In summary, the complex task of generating multi-stage scenario trees can
be handled conveniently by using an Evolutionary Optimization approach.

4.2

Solving the multi-stage decision problem

Solving a multi-stage stochastic programming problem with Evolutionary Optimization techniques is not straightforward. Especially when the underlying
scenario tree is huge, because one would have to calculate an optimal decision
on every node, such that the chromosome would simply be too large, i.e. for
each node of the tree the respective amount of genes (related to the multi-variate
structure of the decision problem) would have to be added to the chromosome.
New simplification strategies have to be devised, which are out of the scope of
this paper.

5

Conclusion

In this paper, several methods on how to apply Evolutionary Optimization
methods to solve stochastic programs have been surveyed and outlined. It is
shown that this class of heuristic optimization solvers can be applied to these
problems conveniently. However, one has to take care of a few pitfalls during
the creation of specific solution methods, which were discussed in this paper.
Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to the MENDEL conference organizing committee for being invited to present this research to the soft computing
community.

References
[1] P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J-M. Eber, and D. Heath. Coherent measures of
risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3):203–228, 1999.
[2] E. M. L. Beale. On Minimizing a Convex Function Subject to Linear
Inequalities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 17:173–184,
1955.
8

[3] C. Blum and A. Roli.
Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: Overview and conceptual comparison. ACM Computing Surveys,
35(3):268–308, 2003.
[4] M. S. Casey and S. Sen. The scenario generation algorithm for multistage stochastic linear programming. Mathematics of Operations Research,
30(3):615–631, 2005.
[5] G. B. Dantzig. Linear Programming under Uncertainty. Management Science, 1:197–206, 1955.
[6] J. Dupačová, N. Gröwe-Kuska, and W. Römisch. Scenario reduction in
stochastic programming. An approach using probability metrics. Mathematical Programming, 95(3, Ser. A):493–511, 2003.
[7] A. Eichhorn and W. Römisch. Polyhedral risk measures in stochastic programming. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 16(1):69–95, 2005.
[8] M. A. Gomez, C. X. Flores, and M. A. Osorio. Hybrid search for cardinality
constrained portfolio optimization. In GECCO ’06: Proceedings of the 8th
annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 1865–
1866. ACM Press, 2006.
[9] H. Heitsch, W. Römisch, and C. Strugarek. Stability of multistage stochastic programs. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 17(2):511–525, 2006.
[10] R. Hochreiter.
Evolutionary stochastic portfolio optimization.
In
A. Brabazon and M. O’Neill, editors, Natural Computing in Computational
Finance, volume 100 of Studies in Computational Intelligence, pages 67–87.
Springer, 2008.
[11] R. Hochreiter. Algorithmic aspects of scenario-based multi-stage decision
process optimization. In F. Rossi and A. Tsoukiàs, editors, Algorithmic
Decision Theory 2009, volume 5783 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
pages 365–376. Springer, 2009.
[12] R. Hochreiter. An algorithm for evolutionary stochastic portfolio optimization with probabilistic constraints. In R. Matousek, editor, 16th International Conference on Soft Computing (MENDEL 2010), volume 16 of
Mendel Conference, pages 1–6. VUT Press, 2010.
[13] R. Hochreiter. Evolutionary multi-stage financial scenario tree generation.
In C. Di Chio et al., editor, Applications of Evolutionary Computation,
Part II, volume 6025 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 182–
191. Springer, 2010.
[14] R. Hochreiter and G. Ch. Pflug. Financial scenario generation for stochastic multi-stage decision processes as facility location problems. Annals of
Operations Research, 152(1):257–272, 2007.
[15] K. Høyland and S. W. Wallace. Generating scenario trees for multistage
decision problems. Management Science, 47(2):295–307, 2001.
[16] M. Koivu. Variance reduction in sample approximations of stochastic programs. Mathematical Programming, 103(3, Ser. A):463–485, 2005.
9

[17] D. Lin, X. Li, and M. Li. A genetic algorithm for solving portfolio optimization problems with transaction costs and minimum transaction lots.
In L. Wang, K. Chen, and Y.-S. Ong, editors, Advances in Natural Computation, First International Conference, ICNC 2005, Changsha, China,
August 27-29, 2005, Proceedings, Part III, volume 3612 of Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, pages 808–811. Springer, 2005.
[18] D. Maringer. Portfolio Management with Heuristic Optimization, volume 8
of Advances in Computational Management Science. Springer, 2005.
[19] H. M. Markowitz. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77–91,
1952.
[20] T. Pennanen. Epi-convergent discretizations of multistage stochastic programs via integration quadratures. Mathematical Programming, 116(1-2,
Ser. B):461–479, 2009.
[21] T. Pennanen and M. Koivu. Epi-convergent discretizations of stochastic programs via integration quadratures.
Numerische Mathematik,
100(1):141–163, 2005.
[22] G. Ch. Pflug. Scenario tree generation for multiperiod financial optimization by optimal discretization. Mathematical Programming, 89(2, Ser.
B):251–271, 2001.
[23] G. Ch. Pflug and W. Römisch. Modeling, Measuring and Managing Risk.
World Scientific, 2007.
[24] S. T. Rachev and W. Römisch. Quantitative stability in stochastic programming: the method of probability metrics. Mathematics of Operations
Research, 27(4):792–818, 2002.
[25] R. T. Rockafellar. Coherent approaches to risk in optimization under uncertainty. Tutorial Notes, Version May 14th, 2007, 2007.
[26] R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, and M. Zabarankin. Generalized deviations
in risk analysis. Finance and Stochastics, 10(1):51–74, 2006.
[27] A. Ruszczyński and A. Shapiro, editors. Stochastic programming, volume 10
of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. Elsevier
Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2003.
[28] F. Schlottmann, A. Mitschele, and D. Seese. A multi-objective approach
to integrated risk management. In C. A. Coello Coello, A. H. Aguirre,
and E.Zitzler, editors, Proceedings of the Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization Conference (EMO 2005), volume 3410 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 692–706. Springer, 2005.
[29] F. Streichert, H. Ulmer, and A. Zell. Evolutionary algorithms and the
cardinality constrained portfolio selection problem. In Selected Papers of
the International Conference on Operations Research (OR 2003), pages
253–260. Springer, 2003.

10

[30] R. Subbu, P.P. Bonissone, N. Eklund, S. Bollapragada, and
K. Chalermkraivuth. Multiobjective financial portfolio design: a hybrid
evolutionary approach. In The 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, volume 2, pages 1722–1729. IEEE Press, 2005.
[31] J. Till, G. Sand, M. Urselmann, and S. Engell. A hybrid evolutionary
algorithm for solving two-stage stochastic integer programs in chemical
batch scheduling. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 31(5-6):630–647,
2007.
[32] K.-i. Tokoro. A statistical selection mechanism of ga for stochastic programming problems. In Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, volume 1, pages 487–492, 2001.
[33] N. Topaloglou, H. Vladimirou, and S.A. Zenios. Cvar models with selective
hedging for international asset allocation. Journal of Banking and Finance,
26(7):1535–1561, 2002.
[34] M. Urselmann, M.T.M. Emmerich, J. Till, G. Sand, and S. Engell. Design
of problem-specific evolutionary algorithm/mixed-integer programming hybrids: Two-stage stochastic integer programming applied to chemical batch
scheduling. Engineering Optimization, 39(5):529–549, 2007.
[35] S. W. Wallace and W. T. Ziemba, editors. Applications of stochastic programming, volume 5 of MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization. Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 2005.
[36] S.-M. Wang, J.-C. Chen, H.-M. Wee, and K.-J. Wang. Non-linear stochastic
optimization using genetic algorithm for portfolio selection. International
Journal of Operations Research, 3(1):16–22, 2006.

11

