Exact Methods for Solving k-Delete Recoverable Robust 0-1 Problems Under Budgeted Uncertainty

The k-delete recoverable robust problem under budgeted uncertainty can equivalently be stated as

Let x^* be an optimal first-stage decision to this problem and let y^* be its associated optimal recovery action under a worst-case uncertainty realization. Because all cost coefficients are non-negative, it is optimal to delete as many components as possible, i.e., \sum_{i=1}^n y^*_i = \sum_{i=1}^n x^*_i - k holds. We now show that there exists a worst-case uncertainty realization u^* \in \mathcal{U}_\Gamma with u^* = y^*.

On the one hand, if y^*_i = 0 holds for some i \in N, setting u^*_i = 1 does not increase the objective value. Hence, there must exist a worst-case realization u^* with u^*_i = 0 for all i \in N satisfying y^*_i = 0. On the other hand, if y^* = 1 holds for some i \in N, setting u^*_i = 1 leads to an objective value that is at least as large as in the case with u^*_i = 0 because \Delta c_i \geq 0 holds. Hence, we set u^*_i = 1 for all i \in N with y^*_i = 1. By construction, this yields u^* \in \{0,1\}^n and

i.e., u^* \in \mathcal{U}_\Gamma. In particular, each i \in N is associated with either no recovery cost (if u^*_i = 0) or the full recovery cost \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i (if u^*_i = 1). Defining the decision-dependent uncertainty set accordingly, we conclude that (i) x^* is feasible for Problem (1), (ii) u^* \in \mathcal{U}(x^*) is a worst-case uncertainty realization for x^*, and (iii) the k-delete recoverable robust problem and Problem (1) attain the same objective value.

Let now x^* \in X be an optimal solution to Problem (1) and let u^* \in \mathcal{U}(x^*) be its associated worst-case uncertainty realization. Because u^* is optimal for the inner maximization problem in (1), we have \sum_{i=1}^n u^*_i = \sum_{i=1}^n x^*_i - k and x^* \geq u^*. Setting y^* = u^* thus yields a feasible recovery action for the given first-stage decision x^*, implying that Problems (?) and (1) admit the same objective value.

Overall, this shows that both problems are equivalent whenever \bar n - k \leq \Gamma.

Let x \in X and u \in \mathcal{U}_\Gamma be given arbitrarily. Then, we obtain

Here, the first equality follows from the total unimodularity of the constraint matrix, whereas the second one is due to strong duality. The third equality follows from optimality arguments. Hence, we obtain

For all i \in N, we have

and we further distinguish the following two cases.

1. If c_{i}(\nu) < 0, i.e., i \in N(\nu), we obtain

   c_{i}(\nu) = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \nu - \bar{c}_i\right\} = \nu - \bar{c}_i = \min \left\{0,\, \nu - \bar{c}_i\right\}

   because \Delta c_i \geq 0 holds.

2. If c_{i}(\nu) \geq 0, i.e., i \in P(\nu), we obtain \nu \geq \bar{c}_i and, thus, \min \{0,\, \nu - \bar{c}_i\} = 0.

Taking all previous considerations into account yields

which concludes the proof.

1. The claim immediately follows from the definition of the respective sets.

2. Let i \in L(\nu^*) be given arbitrarily. By construction, we then have \Delta c_i > \nu^* - \bar{c}_i \geq \underline{\nu} - \bar{c}_i, which yields

   \begin{aligned} c_{i}(\underline{\nu}) + (\nu^* - \underline{\nu}) & = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \underline{\nu} - \bar{c}_i\right\} + (\nu^* - \underline{\nu}) = (\underline{\nu} - \bar{c}_i) + (\nu^* - \underline{\nu}) \\ & = \nu^* - \bar{c}_i = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \nu^* - \bar{c}_i\right\} \\ & = c_{i}(\nu^*). \end{aligned}

   This proves the first equality in (ii). We now show the second one. To this end, let us first assume that \bar{\nu} > \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i holds. Because i \in L(\nu^*), we then obtain \bar{\nu} > \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i > \nu^*, which contradicts the definition of \bar{\nu}. Hence, \bar{\nu} \leq \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i has to hold and we obtain

   \begin{aligned} c_{i}(\nu^*) & = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \nu^* - \bar{c}_i\right\} = \nu^* - \bar{c}_i \\ & = (\bar{\nu} - \bar{c}_i) - (\bar{\nu} - \nu^*) = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \bar{\nu} - \bar{c}_i\right\} - (\bar{\nu} - \nu^*) \\ & = c_{i}(\bar{\nu}) - (\bar{\nu} - \nu^*). \end{aligned}

3. Let i \in G(\nu^*) be given arbitrarily, i.e., \nu^* \geq \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i. By construction, we have \underline{\nu} \geq \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i as well as

   c_{i}(\underline{\nu}) = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \underline{\nu} - \bar{c}_i\right\} = \Delta c_i = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \nu^* - \bar{c}_i\right\} = c_{i}(\nu^*).

   Moreover, we have \bar{\nu} \geq \nu^* \geq \bar{c}_i + \Delta c_i, which yields

   c_{i}(\bar{\nu}) = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \bar{\nu} - \bar{c}_i\right\} = \Delta c_i = \min \left\{\Delta c_i,\, \nu^* - \bar{c}_i\right\} = c_{i}(\nu^*).

4. From i \in N(\nu^*) \cap P(\bar{\nu}), we obtain \bar{\nu} \geq \bar{c}_i > \nu^* and, thus, \bar{\nu} = \bar{c}_i has to hold by the definition of \bar{\nu}. As a result, we have c_{i}(\bar{\nu}) = \min \{\Delta c_i,\, \bar{\nu} - \bar{c}_i\} = 0 because of \Delta c_i \geq 0.

5. We prove the claim by contradiction. Hence, suppose that \nu^* \notin \mathcal{V} holds and that there exists i \in P(\nu^*) \cap N(\underline{\nu}). From i \in P(\nu^*), \nu^* \notin \mathcal{V}, and \bar{c}_i \in \mathcal{V}, we obtain \nu^* > \bar{c}_i. Because i \in N(\underline{\nu}), we further have \bar{c}_i > \underline{\nu}. Overall, this yields \nu^* > \bar{c}_i > \underline{\nu}, which is a contradiction to \underline{\nu} = \max\, \{\nu\colon\nu \in \mathcal{V},\, \nu \leq \nu^*\} \geq \bar{c}_i.

Let x \in X be given arbitrarily. Further, let (u^*,\nu^*) be an optimal solution to Problem (1). We prove the claim by contradiction. To this end, suppose that \nu^* \notin \mathcal{V} holds and let \underline{\nu} and \bar{\nu} be defined as in Lemma 2. We distinguish two cases.

First, suppose that

holds. Then, by Lemmas 1 and 2, we obtain

i.e., (u^*,\underline{\nu}) is an optimal solution to Problem (1) as well.

Second, suppose that

holds. Then, again by Lemmas 1 and 2, we obtain

The latter contradicts the optimality of (u^*,\nu^*) for Problem (1). To sum up, we can thus assume, w.l.o.g., that \nu^* \in \mathcal{V} holds. By Lemma 1, we thus obtain

where the last equality is due to the definition of \bar{c}_{i}(\nu) and \Delta c_{i}(\nu), i \in N, \nu \in \mathcal{V}.

By Proposition 2, Problem (?) can be solved as

where, for given x \in X and \nu \in \mathcal{V}, we have

The claim then follows from the definition of the projected scenario set S(\nu).

We show that, for an optimal solution (x^*,\eta^*,y^*) to Problem (3), the pair (x^*,\eta^*) is an optimal solution to Problem (3). We prove this by contradiction. To this end, let (x^*,\eta^*,y^*) be an optimal solution to Problem (3) and suppose that (x^*,\eta^*) does not solve Problem (3), i.e., there exists (\hat x,\hat \eta) feasible for Problem (3) with f^\top \hat x + \hat \eta < f^\top x^* + \eta^*. For all \nu \in \mathcal{V}, we define

By construction, (\hat x,\hat \eta, \hat y) with \hat y = (\hat y^\nu)_{\nu \in \mathcal{V}} satisfies (3) and (3). For all \nu \in \mathcal{V}, we further have

and

for all \ell \in \mathcal{L} \setminus \left\{\ell^*_\nu\right\}. Hence, the point (\hat x,\hat \eta,\hat y) is feasible for Problem (3) and has a better objective function value than (x^*,\eta^*,y^*). This is a contradiction to the optimality of (x^*,\eta^*,y^*). By Proposition 3, this concludes the proof.

Let (x^j,y^j,\eta^j) be an optimal solution to the problem solved in Line ? of Algorithm ? for some j \in \mathbb{N}. Because (?) is a relaxation of Problem (?), f^\top x^j + \eta^j is a valid lower bound for its optimal objective function value. Moreover, due to Proposition 4, solving Problem (4) for given x^j \in X yields a valid upper bound for Problem (?). Hence, the bound updates in Lines ? and ? are correct and L \leq U holds. If the termination criterion L \geq U is satisfied, we thus have L = U, i.e., the optimality gap is closed.

Finite termination now follows from the finiteness of the scenario set S, the finiteness of the branch-and-cut methods used to solve the MILPs in Lines ? and ?, and from the fact that, in the worst case, the problem considered in Line ? is the one in which all scenarios have been added, i.e., we solve Problem (?). The claim then follows from the equivalence of Problems (?) and (?).

Finite termination follows from the finiteness of the number of feasible first-stage decisions x \in X \subseteq \{0,1\}^n, the finiteness of the branch-and-cut method used to solve the separation problem (?), and from the fact that a pair (x,\eta) cannot occur twice during the execution of the method. We show the latter by contradiction. To this end, suppose that there exist solutions (x^{j},\eta^{j}) = (x^{l},\eta^{l}) at nodes j and l with j < l. Then, by Line ? of Algorithm ?, we have

i.e., the termination criterion was already satisfied at node j. Hence, an optimal solution cannot be overlooked. Finally, the number of cuts possibly added to the problem formulation is finite because \left\lvertX\right\rvert,\left\lvert\mathcal{V}\right\rvert < \infty.