Simple Infinite Horizon Discrete Time non-stochastic problem #528

azev77 · 2022-09-11T22:01:01Z

Hi, can you please help me solve the following problem with SDDP.jl using Ipopt or another open-source solver:

I use the following parameters:

δ=0.1; ρ=0.05; z= ρ + δ +.02; β=1/(1+ρ); # parameters
u_SS = (z-ρ-δ)/(ρ+δ); x_SS = u_SS/δ;
x0 = 0.5 *x_SS ; # start below SS

I spent some time trying and was not able to get it to work...

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

odow · 2022-09-11T22:22:13Z

using SDDP
import Ipopt

function main()
    δ, ρ = 0.1, 0.05
    β = 1 / (1 + ρ)
    graph = SDDP.LinearGraph(1)
    SDDP.add_edge(graph, 1 => 1, β)
    model = SDDP.PolicyGraph(
        graph;
        sense = :Max,
        upper_bound = 1000,
        optimizer = Ipopt.Optimizer,
    ) do sp, _
        z = ρ + δ + 0.02
        u_SS = (z - ρ - δ) / (ρ + δ)
        x_SS = u_SS / δ
        x0 = 0.5 * x_SS
        @variable(sp, x, SDDP.State, initial_value = x0)
        @variable(sp, u)
        @constraint(sp, x.out == (1 - δ) * x.in + u)
        @stageobjective(sp, z * x.in - u - 0.5 * u^2)
        return
    end
    SDDP.train(model; iteration_limit = 50)
    sims = SDDP.simulate(
        model,
        1,
        [:x, :u];
        sampling_scheme = SDDP.Historical([(1, nothing) for t in 1:100])
    )
    return map(sims[1]) do data
        return Dict(:u => data[:u], :x => data[:x].out)
    end
end

yields

100-element Vector{Dict{Symbol, Float64}}:
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362393, :x => 0.7333333333136239)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362374, :x => 0.7933333332958853)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362351, :x => 0.8473333332799203)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362318, :x => 0.8959333332655515)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362332, :x => 0.9396733332526196)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136231, :x => 0.9790393332409807)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362282, :x => 1.0144687332305053)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362288, :x => 1.0463551932210777)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136227, :x => 1.0750530072125926)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362265, :x => 1.100881039804956)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362265, :x => 1.1241262691380831)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362265, :x => 1.1450469755378974)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362238, :x => 1.16387561129773)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362252, :x => 1.1808213834815795)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362257, :x => 1.1960725784470443)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136224, :x => 1.2097986539159622)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136224, :x => 1.2221521218379885)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362215, :x => 1.233270242967812)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362232, :x => 1.2432765519846531)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136223, :x => 1.2522822300998102)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136222, :x => 1.2603873404034514)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362213, :x => 1.2676819396767285)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362227, :x => 1.2742470790226779)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136221, :x => 1.2801557044340324)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362224, :x => 1.2854734673042514)
 Dict(:u => 0.1333333333136221, :x => 1.2902594538874486)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362215, :x => 1.294566841812326)
 ⋮
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362204, :x => 1.33308667414627)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362204, :x => 1.333111340045265)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362213, :x => 1.3331335393543606)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362204, :x => 1.3331535187325465)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362185, :x => 1.3331715001729136)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362204, :x => 1.3331876834692442)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362188, :x => 1.3332022484359418)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362188, :x => 1.3332153569059697)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362182, :x => 1.3332271545289944)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362174, :x => 1.3332377723897169)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362196, :x => 1.333247328464367)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362188, :x => 1.3332559289315524)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362202, :x => 1.3332636693520192)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362207, :x => 1.3332706357304394)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362193, :x => 1.3332769054710174)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362202, :x => 1.3332825482375377)
 Dict(:u => 0.133333333313622, :x => 1.3332876267274059)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362204, :x => 1.3332921973682872)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362193, :x => 1.3332963109450804)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362182, :x => 1.333300013164194)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362185, :x => 1.3333033451613967)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362188, :x => 1.333306343958879)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362182, :x => 1.333309042876613)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362193, :x => 1.3333114719025736)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362185, :x => 1.3333136580259382)
 Dict(:u => 0.13333333331362193, :x => 1.3333156255369663)

which looks like the solution from https://discourse.julialang.org/t/solving-the-4-quadrants-of-dynamic-optimization-problems-in-julia-help-wanted/73285/28?u=odow.

SDDP.jl is overkill for this sort of problem though. It's not what it was designed for.

azev77 · 2022-09-12T03:09:38Z

Thanks this looks awesome!
Is it possible to solve problems w/ logarithmic objectives?

δ, ρ = 0.1, 0.05; β = 1 / (1 + ρ);
z = ρ + δ + 0.02;
u_SS = (z - ρ - δ) / (ρ + δ);
x_SS = u_SS / δ;
x0 = 0.5 * x_SS;
x0 = 1.5 * x_SS;

opt = Ipopt.Optimizer;
T_sim=300;
#####################################################
graph = SDDP.LinearGraph(1)
SDDP.add_edge(graph, 1 => 1, β)

model = SDDP.PolicyGraph(
    graph; sense = :Max, upper_bound = 1000, optimizer = opt,
) do sp, _
    @variable(sp, x, SDDP.State, initial_value = x0) # state variable
    @variable(sp, u)                                 # control variable
    @NLconstraint(sp, x.out == (1-δ)*x.in +(x.in^(0.33)) - u)     # transition fcn 
    @stageobjective(sp, log(u) )    # payoff fcn 
    # @stageobjective(sp, -(u-0.5)^2 )    # payoff fcn 
    return
end

ERROR: log is not defined for type AbstractVariableRef. Are you trying to build a nonlinear problem? Make sure you use @NLconstraint/@NLobjective.

odow · 2022-09-12T03:14:08Z

We don't support nonlinear objectives just yet. You'll need to add an epigraph variable.

model = SDDP.PolicyGraph(
    graph; sense = :Max, upper_bound = 1000, optimizer = opt,
) do sp, _
    @variable(sp, x, SDDP.State, initial_value = x0) # state variable
    @variable(sp, u)                                 # control variable
    @NLconstraint(sp, x.out == (1-δ)*x.in +(x.in^(0.33)) - u)     # transition fcn 
    @variable(sp, t)
    @NLconstraint(model, t <= log(u))
    @stageobjective(sp, t)    # payoff fcn 
    # @stageobjective(sp, -(u-0.5)^2 )    # payoff fcn 
    return
end

azev77 · 2022-09-12T03:18:08Z

Got an error:

###################################################
δ, ρ = 0.1, 0.05; β = 1 / (1 + ρ);
z = ρ + δ + 0.02;
u_SS = (z - ρ - δ) / (ρ + δ);
x_SS = u_SS / δ;
x0 = 0.5 * x_SS;
x0 = 1.5 * x_SS;

opt = Ipopt.Optimizer;
T_sim=300;
#####################################################
graph = SDDP.LinearGraph(1)
SDDP.add_edge(graph, 1 => 1, β)

model = SDDP.PolicyGraph(
    graph; sense = :Max, upper_bound = 1000, optimizer = opt,
) do sp, _
    @variable(sp, x, SDDP.State, initial_value = x0) # state variable
    @variable(sp, u)                                 # control variable
    @NLconstraint(sp, x.out == (1-δ)*x.in +(x.in^(0.33)) - u)     # transition fcn 
    @variable(sp, t)
    @NLconstraint(model, t <= log(u))
    @stageobjective(sp, t)    # payoff fcn 
    # @stageobjective(sp, -(u-0.5)^2 )    # payoff fcn 
    return
end
ERROR: Expected model to be a JuMP model, but it has type SDDP.PolicyGraph{Int64}

odow · 2022-09-12T03:50:13Z

Oh. @NLconstraint(model, t <= log(u)) should be @NLconstraint(sp, t <= log(u))

azev77 · 2022-09-12T04:03:26Z

I wish I understood your pkg well enough to troubleshoot on my own

###################################################
δ, ρ = 0.1, 0.05; β = 1 / (1 + ρ);
z = ρ + δ + 0.02;
u_SS = (z - ρ - δ) / (ρ + δ);
x_SS = u_SS / δ;
x0 = 0.5 * x_SS;
x0 = 1.5 * x_SS;

opt = Ipopt.Optimizer;
T_sim=300;
#####################################################
graph = SDDP.LinearGraph(1)
SDDP.add_edge(graph, 1 => 1, β)

model = SDDP.PolicyGraph(
    graph; sense = :Max, upper_bound = 1000, optimizer = opt,
) do sp, _
    @variable(sp, x, SDDP.State, initial_value = x0) # state variable
    @variable(sp, u)                                 # control variable
    @NLconstraint(sp, x.out == (1-δ)*x.in +(x.in^(0.33)) - u)     # transition fcn 
    @variable(sp, t)
    @NLconstraint(sp, t <= log(u))
    @stageobjective(sp, t)    # payoff fcn 
    # @stageobjective(sp, -(u-0.5)^2 )    # payoff fcn 
    return
end


A policy graph with 1 nodes.
 Node indices: 1


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      SDDP.jl (c) Oscar Dowson, 2017-21

Problem
  Nodes           : 1
  State variables : 1
  Scenarios       : Inf
  Existing cuts   : false
  Subproblem structure                   : (min, max)
    Variables                            : (5, 5)
    VariableRef in MOI.LessThan{Float64} : (1, 1)
Options
  Solver          : serial mode
  Risk measure    : SDDP.Expectation()
  Sampling scheme : SDDP.InSampleMonteCarlo

Numerical stability report
  Non-zero Matrix range     [0e+00, 0e+00]
  Non-zero Objective range  [1e+00, 1e+00]
  Non-zero Bounds range     [1e+03, 1e+03]
  Non-zero RHS range        [0e+00, 0e+00]
No problems detected

 Iteration    Simulation       Bound         Time (s)    Proc. ID   # Solves
┌ Warning: Attempting to recover from serious numerical issues...
└ @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:261
ERROR: Unable to retrieve solution from 1.
  Termination status: INVALID_MODEL
  Primal status:      UNKNOWN_RESULT_STATUS
  Dual status:        UNKNOWN_RESULT_STATUS.
A MathOptFormat file was written to `subproblem_1.mof.json`.
See https://odow.github.io/SDDP.jl/latest/tutorial/06_warnings/#Numerical-stability-1
for more information.
Stacktrace:
  [1] error(::String, ::String, ::String, ::String, ::String, ::String, ::String)
    @ Base ./error.jl:44
  [2] write_subproblem_to_file(node::SDDP.Node{Int64}, filename::String; throw_error::Bool)
    @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:236
  [3] attempt_numerical_recovery(node::SDDP.Node{Int64})
    @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:272
  [4] solve_subproblem(model::SDDP.PolicyGraph{Int64}, node::SDDP.Node{Int64}, state::Dict{Symbol, Float64}, noise::Nothing, scenario_path::Vector{Tuple{Int64, Any}}; duality_handler::Nothing)
    @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:393
  [5] macro expansion
    @ ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/plugins/forward_passes.jl:84 [inlined]
  [6] macro expansion
    @ ~/.julia/packages/TimerOutputs/4yHI4/src/TimerOutput.jl:237 [inlined]
  [7] forward_pass(model::SDDP.PolicyGraph{Int64}, options::SDDP.Options{Int64}, #unused#::SDDP.DefaultForwardPass)
    @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/plugins/forward_passes.jl:83
  [8] macro expansion
    @ ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:782 [inlined]
  [9] macro expansion
    @ ~/.julia/packages/TimerOutputs/4yHI4/src/TimerOutput.jl:237 [inlined]
 [10] iteration(model::SDDP.PolicyGraph{Int64}, options::SDDP.Options{Int64})
    @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:781
 [11] master_loop
    @ ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/plugins/parallel_schemes.jl:32 [inlined]
 [12] train(model::SDDP.PolicyGraph{Int64}; iteration_limit::Int64, time_limit::Nothing, print_level::Int64, log_file::String, log_frequency::Int64, run_numerical_stability_report::Bool, stopping_rules::Vector{SDDP.AbstractStoppingRule}, risk_measure::SDDP.Expectation, sampling_scheme::SDDP.InSampleMonteCarlo, cut_type::SDDP.CutType, cycle_discretization_delta::Float64, refine_at_similar_nodes::Bool, cut_deletion_minimum::Int64, backward_sampling_scheme::SDDP.CompleteSampler, dashboard::Bool, parallel_scheme::SDDP.Serial, forward_pass::SDDP.DefaultForwardPass, forward_pass_resampling_probability::Nothing, add_to_existing_cuts::Bool, duality_handler::SDDP.ContinuousConicDuality, forward_pass_callback::SDDP.var"#73#77")
    @ SDDP ~/.julia/packages/SDDP/VpZOu/src/algorithm.jl:1041
 [13] top-level scope
    @ ~/Dropbox/Computation/Julia/4prob_new/3_Invest_CapStruct_Default/2a_Firm_Invest/Invest/SDDP.jl:99

julia>

odow · 2022-09-12T04:18:33Z

I should have thought about this a fraction more. The issue now is that log(0) is undefined, so it breaks when it explores the u = 0 action. Add a lower bound on u: @variable(sp, u >= 0.001)

azev77 · 2022-09-12T04:45:02Z

Got it to work

using SDDP, Plots
import Ipopt
α=.33; δ=1.0; z=1.0; β=.98;
s_ss = (((1/β) -1 +δ)/(α*z))^(1/(α-1))
c_ss = z*(s_ss)^(α) - δ*s_ss 

opt = Ipopt.Optimizer;
T_sim=100;
#####################################################
graph = SDDP.LinearGraph(1)
SDDP.add_edge(graph, 1 => 1, β)

model = SDDP.PolicyGraph(
    graph; sense = :Max, upper_bound = 1000, optimizer = opt,
) do sp, _
    @variable(sp, x >= 1e-5, SDDP.State, initial_value = 1.0) # state variable
    @variable(sp, u >= 1e-5)                        # control variable
    @NLconstraint(sp, x.out == (1-δ)*x.in +(x.in^α) - u)     # transition fcn 
    @variable(sp, t)
    @NLconstraint(sp, t <= log(u + 1e-9))
    @stageobjective(sp, t)    # payoff fcn 
    # @stageobjective(sp, -(u-0.5)^2 )    # payoff fcn 
    return
end

SDDP.train(model; iteration_limit = 100)

sims = SDDP.simulate(model, 1, [:x, :u];
    sampling_scheme = SDDP.Historical([(1, nothing) for t in 1:T_sim])
);

sim_K = map(data -> data[:x].out, sims[1])
sim_i = map(data -> data[:u], sims[1])

plot(legend=:topright) #, ylims = (0,2)
plot!(sim_K,  c=1, lab="K")
plot!(1:T_sim, tt -> s_ss, c=1, l=:dash, lw=3, lab = "K_SS")
plot!(sim_i, c=2, lab="c")
plot!(1:T_sim, tt -> c_ss, c=2, l=:dash, lw=3, lab = "i_SS")

it's kinda slow (requires many iterations for accurate sol...). I bet my code could be optimized a lot... And/Or maybe I need to use a better solver.
Assumption 3 in the docs says the transition function has to be linear (this problem has a nonlinear transition & it works)
Can SDDP.jl be realistically used for DP problems w/ a large number of state variables?
How many?
I plug in an initial value for the state.
If I wanna simulate starting from a different initial value, do I have to solve all over?
Normally I solve a DP for the policy function, next I simulate from any initial state...
a stupid question: normally when I solve this problem w/ VFI/PFI I make a grid for the state space.
Where is the grid?

odow · 2022-09-12T05:06:22Z

it's kinda slow (requires many iterations for accurate sol...). I bet my code could be optimized a lot... And/Or maybe I need to use a better solver.

Three parts to this:

One, it's intended for a much more complicated class of problems, i.e., with hundreds/thousands of control variables and constraints, plus uncertainty.
It's intended for linear problems, which can efficiently use dual simplex to warm-start given a change in the right-hand side coefficient vector. There is no good warm-start for nonlinear programs.
JuMP currently throws away a lot of the nonlinear program and rebuilds it every time: Fast resolves for NLP jump-dev/JuMP.jl#1185

So this is probably never going to compete with discretization methods for the trivial, but nonlinear, problem classes that you're exploring.

Assumption 3 in the docs says the transition function has to be linear (this problem has a nonlinear transition & it works)

You can break a lot of the assumptions and things still work. The problem is, we loose convergence guarantees on the solution that you'll end up with. If things stay convex, you're safe. If the problem is non-convex, then you'll run into trouble.

Can SDDP.jl be realistically used for DP problems w/ a large number of state variables? How many?

It depends. <100? The answer really depends though. For deterministic problems, maybe more. For stochastic problems, sometimes even 3 or 4 states becomes really hard to solve. As an indication, the NZ electricity system model has O(10^1) states, O(10^2) control variables and constraints, 52 stages with one cycle, and stagewise independent uncertainty, and it takes 24 hours to solve.

I plug in an initial value for the state. If I wanna simulate starting from a different initial value, do I have to solve all over?
Normally I solve a DP for the policy function, next I simulate from any initial state...

simulate accepts an incoming_state kwarg: https://odow.github.io/SDDP.jl/stable/apireference/#SDDP.simulate

sims = SDDP.simulate(model, 1, [:x, :u];
    sampling_scheme = SDDP.Historical([(1, nothing) for t in 1:T_sim]),
    incoming_state = Dict("x" => 10.0),
);

Untested, but try something like:

rule = SDDP.DecisionRule(model, 1)
SDDP.evaluate(
    rule; 
    incoming_state = Dict(:x => 10.0),
    conntrols_to_record = [:u],
)

https://odow.github.io/SDDP.jl/stable/apireference/#SDDP.DecisionRule

I notice there's actually an API uniformity issue; one is the String "x" and the other asks for the Symbol :x.

azev77 · 2022-09-12T05:31:48Z

When economists solve Stochastic DP problems, usually they can handle up to 5 state variables.
Usually the objective & transition fcn are nonlinear.
I was under the impression that packages created by DP/optimization experts can easily solve versions of our problems w/ 100s/1000s state variables.
Maybe some can, but it doesn't seem like it's gonna be easy...

odow · 2022-09-12T20:08:17Z

But just for a ballpark figure, if there are 1000 state variables, and each state has two potential values (on/off), then there are 2^1000 (~10^300) values in the state-space, and normal dynamic programming would need to evaluate each of those. So it's impossible to solve those problems exactly. You need some sort of approximation or clever algorithm.

In a way, SDDP.jl is just doing value function iteration using linear programs instead of a discretization scheme. So not only does it have the downsides of value function iteration, but it also requires solving a linear program at each step instead of directly evaluating the cost function.

odow · 2022-12-14T00:18:06Z

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I have some plans for revamped documentation, #496, which will include some examples from finance.

Closing because this isn't a bug and other issues cover the documentation feature request.

odow closed this as completed Dec 14, 2022

This was referenced Dec 14, 2022

Documentation improvements #496

Closed

Add examples of Stochastic Optimal Control #429

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Simple Infinite Horizon Discrete Time non-stochastic problem #528

Simple Infinite Horizon Discrete Time non-stochastic problem #528

azev77 commented Sep 11, 2022

odow commented Sep 11, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Dec 14, 2022

Simple Infinite Horizon Discrete Time non-stochastic problem #528

Simple Infinite Horizon Discrete Time non-stochastic problem #528

Comments

azev77 commented Sep 11, 2022

odow commented Sep 11, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022 • edited Loading

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Sep 12, 2022

odow commented Dec 14, 2022

azev77 commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading