Robust Bilevel Optimization for Near-Optimal Lower-Level Solutions

Luce Brotcorne; Mathieu Besan\c{c}on; Miguel F. Anjos

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Robust Bilevel Optimization for Near-Optimal Lower-Level Solutions

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A linear bilevel problem whose leader must stay feasible against every near-optimal follower response is reformulated exactly as a single-level mixed-integer linear program.

desk verdict New model class with a sound linear MILP, but the conic reformulation has a sign error that must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04040 v11 pith:DUTLKA45 submitted 2019-08-12 math.OC cs.GT

Mathieu Besançon , Miguel F. Anjos , Luce Brotcorne This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCcs.GT MSC 90C3390C4691A6590C2690C34

keywords bileveloptimizationnear-optimalrobustnessrobustmixed-integerlinearprogrammingdisjunctiveconstraintsstrongdualityadversarialproblemdecision-dependentuncertainty

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces near-optimal robust bilevel optimization (NORBiP), a model in which the upper-level decision must remain feasible not only at the lower level's optimal response but at every response whose objective is within tolerance δ of optimal. It establishes that for convex lower-level problems the robustness requirement can be replaced by dual certificates of adversarial subproblems, and for linear-linear problems this yields an exact single-level mixed-integer linear reformulation using disjunctive constraints over the vertices of the dual polyhedra. A proposed algorithm solves the reformulation with an off-the-shelf MILP solver. The practical stake is that leaders no longer need to assume perfect follower rationality: a small tolerance δ on the follower's objective can be budgeted explicitly, and in the reported tests the cost in upper-level objective value is often small.

What carries the argument

The near-optimal set Z(x; δ) = {y : g(x,y) ≤ 0, f(x,y) ≤ φ(x)+δ} and the adversarial problem that maximizes each upper-level constraint G_k(x,y) over it. The load-bearing identity is strong duality for that adversarial problem: the worst-case value equals the minimum of the dual objective αᵀ(b−Ax) + β(dᵀv + δ) subject to Bᵀα + βd ≥ H_k, α ≥ 0, β ≥ 0. Feasibility of the original constraint is equivalent, under strong duality, to the existence of such a dual certificate satisfying the certificate inequality. In the linear case the dual feasible set is a polyhedron independent of (x,v), so its extreme vertices are the decision points of the disjunctive reformulation; SOS1 constraints then linearize the complementarity conditions of the lower level without the need for big-M bounds.

What would settle it

Take a small linear instance with a known analytic solution, fix δ, and compare the extended MILP's feasible set against direct enumeration of the vertices of the near-optimal polytope Z(x; δ): any instance where the MILP declares robustness while some enumerated near-optimal point violates an upper-level constraint would refute the claimed equivalence. A cheaper targeted test is a convex instance where Slater's condition fails and the dual-certificate constraint is satisfied while a near-optimal point violates the upper-level constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that near-optimal robustness of a linear bilevel problem is exactly captured by the existence, for every upper-level constraint k, of a feasible point (α_k, β_k) of the dual of the adversarial subproblem that certifies G_k(x) + H_k z ≤ q_k for all z in the near-optimal set Z(x; δ). Because each dual feasible region is a polyhedron independent of the upper-level variables, and because an optimal dual solution can be taken at a vertex, the certification condition becomes a disjunction over those vertices. Replacing the bilinear certification inequalities by this disjunction, and linearizing the lower-level KKT complementarity conditions with SOS1 constraints, yields a single-level MILP equivalent to the original NORBiP, solvable by standard branch-and-cut methods. The paper also derives general existence conditions, a radius of near-optimal feasibility, and an algorithmic framework for the linear case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every adversarial subproblem has zero duality gap, guaranteed in the convex case by Slater's condition, so a dual certificate is both sufficient and necessary for near-optimal robustness; without it, the single-level reformulation can assert robustness that the true near-optimal set does not have.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The linear near-optimal robust bilevel problem is solvable by any MILP solver through a finite extended formulation, avoiding nonlinear spatial branching on bilinear terms.
The δ = 0 case recovers the pessimistic bilevel problem, so the formulation contains pessimistic bilevel as a limit, while δ → ∞ gives robust feasibility over the whole lower-level feasible set.
Optimistic bilevel solutions are generally not near-optimal robust: in the tested library instances, 57 of 100 were infeasible at the smallest deviation tested, motivating direct solution of the robust version.
The radius of near-optimal feasibility δ̂ provides a scalar answer to how wrong the follower can be before the leader's plan breaks.
As δ grows, more instances become infeasible, but for instances that remain feasible the upper-level objective value degrades little in the experiments.
Valid inequalities based on primal upper-level constraints accelerate solving on medium and MIPS instances, while the strong-duality inequality mainly proves infeasibility early.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Going beyond the paper: the vertex-disjunctive treatment of bilinear certification constraints applies to any single-level reformulation whose adversarial dual is a polyhedron, so other bilinear bilevel models could inherit the same machinery.
Going beyond the paper: since vertex enumeration, not MILP solving, dominates runtime on the largest instances, a lazy constraint-generation version that exposes only needed vertices could scale the approach; the paper's experiments do not settle that question.
Going beyond the paper: the tolerance δ can be read as a bounded-rationality budget, suggesting an empirical calibration study that estimates δ from observed follower deviations in market or traffic data.
Going beyond the paper: separating the upper-level objective (evaluated at the optimistic response) from feasibility (protected over all near-optimal responses) suggests a risk-attitude parameterization that could be extended to lexicographic or weighted robustness variants.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper: it introduces a genuinely new model class—near-optimal robust bilevel optimization (NORBiP)—and its central linear result, an exact MILP via disjunctions over dual polyhedron vertices, holds up. But the more general conic reformulation in Section 3 contains a sign error that makes it invalid as stated.

The modeling contribution is real. NORBiP protects upper-level feasibility against all lower-level responses whose objective is within δ of optimal, and unlike the independent-case ε-approximation of Wiesemann et al., it allows the lower-level feasible set and objective to depend on the upper-level decision x. This is a meaningful generalization and a useful bridge between pessimistic bilevel and robust optimization with decision-dependent uncertainty. Section 4 derives the linear-linear case cleanly: KKT conditions for lower-level optimality, strong duality for the adversarial subproblems, and then a vertex-disjunctive reformulation of the bilinear robustness constraints. The disjunctive trick—replacing the bilinear terms by "at least one extreme vertex of the dual polyhedron works"—is elegant and appears sound. The experiments are not extensive, but they show the MILP beats spatial-branching on small instances and the valid-inequality discussion is honest about where the inequalities help and where they don't.

Now the soft spots. First, Eq. (23f) reverses the sign of the first term in the dual objective: the adversarial dual is ⟨b−Ax, α_k⟩ + β_k(⟨v,d⟩+δ), but (23f) imposes ⟨Ax−b, α_k⟩ + ... ≤ q_k−(Gx)_k. That flips which upper-level decisions are certified; Problem (23) is not the conic NORBiP as written. The linear Section 4 uses the correct sign in (28e), so the main MILP claim survives, but the paper's general convex/conic contribution is invalid without a fix. Second, the illustrative example in Section 4.2 states δhat=5, but the displayed inequalities give δhat=4 at (x,v)=(5,0). It's a small inconsistency, but in a running example it matters. Third, Corollary 2 states a sufficient condition as |G|≤KR, but the Lipschitz argument in Proposition 5 yields the opposite direction: the safe ball radius is |G|/K, so requiring the feasible-set radius R to fit inside it means R ≤ |G|/K, i.e., |G| ≥ KR. These are all correctable, but they add up to a paper that needs another revision pass before it can be accepted.

If I were the editor, I would send this to review. The linear MILP result is worth refereeing, and a competent referee will catch or force the correction of these issues. The paper is a serious piece of work with a promising idea; it just isn't ready as-is.

Best,

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces near-optimal robust bilevel optimization (NORBiP), a model in which the upper-level constraints must remain feasible for every lower-level solution that is within a tolerance δ of the lower-level optimal value. It formulates NORBiP as a generalized semi-infinite program, establishes basic properties and a Lipschitz-based robustness certificate, and then develops duality-based single-level reformulations: a closed-form conic reformulation for convex conic lower levels (Section 3) and an extended MILP for linear-linear bilevel problems (Section 4), the latter replacing bilinear dual-certificate constraints with a disjunction over extreme vertices of the dual polyhedra and using SOS1 constraints for complementarity. A vertex-enumeration algorithm (NORVEP) and computational experiments on random and Bilevel Library instances are presented.

Significance. If correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: it gives a clean definition of near-optimal robustness in bilevel optimization, a reduction of objective-robust near-optimal problems to constraint-robust form, a parameter-free duality-based single-level derivation, and an exact linear reformulation that can be solved by off-the-shelf MILP solvers. The numerical study is substantial and uses exact rational vertex enumeration and publicly available instances, which strengthens reproducibility. However, the general convex/conic reformulation in Section 3 is invalid as stated because of a sign error in the dual-objective constraint, and the illustrative example in Section 4.2 contains an inconsistent radius value. These issues must be corrected before the claims can be fully relied upon; the linear MILP reformulation in Section 4 appears otherwise sound.

major comments (1)

[Section 3, Eq. (23f)] The single-level conic reformulation contains a sign error: constraint (23f) is written as ⟨Ax−b, α_k⟩ + β_k(⟨v,d⟩+δ) ≤ q_k − (Gx)_k, whereas the dual objective in (20a) is ⟨(b−Ax), α_k⟩ + (⟨d,v⟩+δ)β_k. Since α_k is a free variable in the conic dual, replacing b−Ax by Ax−b changes the certification condition and makes Problem (23) not equivalent to the preceding near-optimal robust conic bilevel program. The correct form should be ⟨b−Ax, α_k⟩ + β_k(⟨v,d⟩+δ) ≤ q_k − (Gx)_k. The linear reformulation in Eq. (28e) uses the correct sign, so the Section 4 results are not directly affected, but the Section 3 claim of a closed-form convex/conic reformulation needs a substantive correction.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.2] The reported radius δhat = 5 is inconsistent with the displayed near-optimality constraints: with the vertex (α=0, β1=4, β2=2), the constraints are 4(v+δ) ≤ 11+x and 2(v+δ) ≤ 13−x. For δ=5 these require x≥9 and x≤3 simultaneously, so no feasible (x,v) exists. The maximum δ that leaves a feasible point is δ=4, attained at (x,v)=(5,0); the text and the green circle in Fig. 4 should be adjusted accordingly.
[Section 2, Corollary 2] Corollary 2 states the sufficient condition as |G_k(xhat,yhat)| ≤ K_k R, but the Lipschitz argument in Proposition 5 requires the opposite direction: from |G(x,y) − G(xhat,yhat)| ≤ K R, robustness needs G(xhat,yhat)+K R ≤ 0, i.e., |G(xhat,yhat)| ≥ K R. The displayed inequality should be reversed.
[Section 5.4] The tolerance definition is garbled: 'δ = max(0.05,δro)' should presumably read δ = max(0.05, δ_r · o), where o is the optimal lower-level objective value and δ_r ranges over {0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 3.0}. Please correct the missing multiplication and define all symbols explicitly.
[Section 4.1] The sentence describing the dual subproblem's feasible region says it is defined by Eqs. (30h-30j), but (30h) is the bilinear constraint involving (x,v) and is not independent of the upper-level decision; the independent feasible region is defined by (30i)-(30j). This appears to be a typo and should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the single-level reformulation follows from standard duality and KKT conditions, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and mathematically constructive rather than definitionally circular. The near-optimal set Z(x;δ) is defined independently from the adversarial subproblems (5), and the robustness constraint (6d) is simply the worst-case reformulation of that set. For convex and linear lower levels, the paper replaces the adversarial primal by its dual (Problems (20)/(27)) and invokes standard weak/strong duality and KKT conditions (Section 3 and Section 4). The bilinear constraints are then linearized by enumerating extreme vertices of the dual polyhedra and writing disjunctive constraints (31)-(32); the vertices are independent of (x,v), so this is an exact polyhedral reformulation rather than a fitted or imported result. The tolerance δ is a user-specified input, and the radius δhat is computed by optimizing over δ in Definition 1, not calibrated to match later predictions. The numerical experiments compare formulations on randomly generated and standard library instances, and the only self-referential citation is the authors' data repository [36], which supplies test instances and is not used as a proof step. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known-result renaming is imported from the authors' prior work to force the claimed equivalence. Any concerns about the sign in Eq. (23f) or the consistency of Corollary 2 would be correctness issues, not circularity, and they do not make the derivation equivalent to its own inputs. The central linear MILP equivalence is therefore not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation uses standard convex duality, KKT, and polyhedral LP theory. The tolerance delta is a user input, not a fitted parameter; the radius delta-hat is computed from the model. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The affine upper-constraint assumption and Slater's condition are the main domain assumptions restricting the scope of the convex method.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The lower-level problem is feasible and bounded for every upper-level decision x.
Stated in Section 2 after Eq. (2); it makes the optimal value function phi(x) and the near-optimal set Z(x;delta) well-defined.
domain assumption For the convex lower-level case, each upper-level constraint is affine in the lower-level variables: G_k(x,y) <= 0 iff G_k(x)+H_k^T y <= q_k.
Introduced around Eq. (13) in Section 3; it makes the adversarial subproblem convex, which the duality-based reformulation requires.
domain assumption Slater's constraint qualification holds for the lower-level problem and the adversarial subproblems in the convex case.
Invoked at the start of Section 3 to make KKT conditions necessary and sufficient and to ensure strong duality, the basis for replacing semi-infinite constraints with dual certificates.
standard math In the linear case, the dual adversarial polyhedron is nonempty and pointed, so when the dual objective is bounded below the optimum is attained at an extreme vertex.
Used in Section 4.1 to replace bilinear certificate constraints by a disjunction over vertices; standard LP theory.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Bilevel Optimization for Near-Optimal Lower-Level Solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUTLKA45

@misc{pith2026190804040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Bilevel Optimization for Near-Optimal Lower-Level Solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUTLKA45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04040}
}

read the original abstract

Bilevel optimization problems embed the optimality of a subproblem as a constraint of another optimization problem. We introduce the concept of near-optimality robustness for bilevel optimization, protecting the upper-level solution feasibility from limited deviations from the optimal solution at the lower level. General properties and necessary conditions for the existence of solutions are derived for near-optimal robust versions of general bilevel optimization problems. A duality-based solution method is defined when the lower level is convex, leveraging the methodology from the robust and bilevel literature. Numerical results assess the efficiency of exact and heuristic methods and the impact of valid inequalities on the solution time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

Bilevel optimization: theory, algorithms and applications,

S. Dempe, “Bilevel optimization: theory, algorithms and applications,” 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Pessimistic Bilevel Op- timization,

W. Wiesemann, A. Tsoukalas, P.-M. Kleniati, and B. Rustem, “Pessimistic Bilevel Op- timization,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 23, pp. 353–380, jan 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Dempe, Foundations of bilevel programming

S. Dempe, Foundations of bilevel programming. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002

work page 2002
[4]

Optimal structural design in nonsmooth mechanics,

G. E. Stavroulakis and H. Günzel, “Optimal structural design in nonsmooth mechanics,” in Multilevel Optimization: Algorithms and Applications, pp. 91–115, Springer, 1998

work page 1998
[5]

Optimizing the operations of an aluminium smelter using non-linear bi- level programming,

M. G. Nicholls, “Optimizing the operations of an aluminium smelter using non-linear bi- level programming,” inMultilevel Optimization: Algorithms and Applications, pp. 117– 148, Springer, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

Theories of bounded rationality,

H. A. Simon, “Theories of bounded rationality,”Decision and organization, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 161–176, 1972

work page 1972
[7]

Rationality and bounded rationality,

R. J. Aumann, “Rationality and bounded rationality,” inCooperation: Game-Theoretic Approaches, pp. 219–231, Springer, 1997

work page 1997
[8]

Robust game theory,

M. Aghassi and D. Bertsimas, “Robust game theory,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 107, pp. 231–273, Jun 2006

work page 2006

Show all 43 references

[9]

Robust wardrop equilibrium,

F. Ordóñez and N. E. Stier-Moses, “Robust wardrop equilibrium,” inNetwork Control and Optimization (T. Chahed and B. Tuﬃn, eds.), (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 247–256, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

2007
[10]

Robust solutions in stackelberg games: Addressing boundedly rational human preference models,

M. Jain, F. Ordónez, J. Pita, C. Portway, M. Tambe, C. Western, P. Paruchuri, and S. Kraus, “Robust solutions in stackelberg games: Addressing boundedly rational human preference models,” 2008

2008
[11]

Robust solutions to stackelberg games: Addressing bounded rationality and limited observations in human cognition,

J. Pita, M. Jain, M. Tambe, F. Ordóñez, and S. Kraus, “Robust solutions to stackelberg games: Addressing bounded rationality and limited observations in human cognition,” Artiﬁcial Intelligence, vol. 174, no. 15, pp. 1142–1171, 2010

2010
[12]

Decision rule bounds for two-stage stochastic bilevel pro- grams,

I. Yanıkoğlu and D. Kuhn, “Decision rule bounds for two-stage stochastic bilevel pro- grams,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 198–222, 2018

2018
[13]

On a class of bilevel linear mixed- integer programs in adversarial settings,

M. H. Zare, O. Y. Özaltın, and O. A. Prokopyev, “On a class of bilevel linear mixed- integer programs in adversarial settings,”Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 91–113, 2018

2018
[14]

On bilevel optimization with inexact follower,

M. H. Zare, O. A. Prokopyev, and D. Sauré, “On bilevel optimization with inexact follower,”Decision Analysis, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 74–95, 2020

2020
[15]

Dempe, V

S. Dempe, V. Kalashnikov, G. A. Prez-Valds, and N. Kalashnykova,Bilevel Program- ming Problems: Theory, Algorithms and Applications to Energy Networks. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2015

2015
[16]

Generalized semi-inﬁnite programming: Theory and methods,

G. Still, “Generalized semi-inﬁnite programming: Theory and methods,”European Jour- nal of Operational Research, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 301–313, 1999

1999
[17]

A class of stochastic programs with decision depen- dent uncertainty,

V. Goel and I. E. Grossmann, “A class of stochastic programs with decision depen- dent uncertainty,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 108, pp. 355–394, Sep 2006. DOI: 10.1007/s10107-006-0715-7

2006 doi
[18]

Recent advances in robust optimization: An overview,

V. Gabrel, C. Murat, and A. Thiele, “Recent advances in robust optimization: An overview,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 235, pp. 471–483, jun 2014

2014
[19]

Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization,

D. Bertsimas, D. B. Brown, and C. Caramanis, “Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization,”SIAM Review, vol. 53, pp. 464–501, jan 2011

2011
[20]

Weak via strong Stackelberg problem: New results,

P. Loridan and J. Morgan, “Weak via strong Stackelberg problem: New results,”Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 8, pp. 263–287, Apr 1996

1996
[21]

Radius of robust feasibility for mixed-integer problems,

F. Liers, L. Schewe, and J. Thürauf, “Radius of robust feasibility for mixed-integer problems,” 2019.http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_FILE/2019/05/7219.pdf

2019
[22]

Radius of robust feasibility formulas for classes of convex programs with uncertain polynomial constraints,

M.A. Goberna and V. Jeyakumar and G. Li and N. Linh, “Radius of robust feasibility formulas for classes of convex programs with uncertain polynomial constraints,”Opera- tions Research Letters, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 67 – 73, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.orl.2015.11.011

2016 doi
[23]

Methods for global concave minimization: A bibliographic survey,

P. Pardalos and J. Rosen, “Methods for global concave minimization: A bibliographic survey,”SIAM Review, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 367–379, 1986

1986
[24]

A branch and bound-outer approximation algorithm for con- cave minimization over a convex set,

H. Benson and R. Horst, “A branch and bound-outer approximation algorithm for con- cave minimization over a convex set,”Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 67 – 76, 1991. Near-optimal robust bilevel optimization 31

1991
[25]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

2004
[26]

Computing locally optimal solutions of the bilevel optimization problem using the kkt approach,

S. Dempe, “Computing locally optimal solutions of the bilevel optimization problem using the kkt approach,” inInternational Conference on Mathematical Optimization Theory and Operations Research, pp. 147–157, Springer, 2019

2019
[27]

Convergence properties of a regularization scheme for mathematical pro- gramswithcomplementarityconstraints,

S. Scholtes, “Convergence properties of a regularization scheme for mathematical pro- gramswithcomplementarityconstraints,”SIAM Journal on Optimization,vol.11,no.4, pp. 918–936, 2001

2001
[28]

Computing feasible points for binary MINLPs with MPECs,

L. Schewe and M. Schmidt, “Computing feasible points for binary MINLPs with MPECs,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, pp. 95–118, Mar 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s12532-018-0141-x

2019 doi
[29]

Nesterov and A

Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovskii,Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex pro- gramming, vol. 13. SIAM, 1994

1994
[30]

Mathematical programs with complementarity constraints: Stationarity, optimality, and sensitivity,

H. Scheel and S. Scholtes, “Mathematical programs with complementarity constraints: Stationarity, optimality, and sensitivity,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2000

2000
[31]

There’s no free lunch: On the hardness of choosing a correct big-m in bilevel optimization,

T. Kleinert, M. Labbé, F. Plein, and M. Schmidt, “There’s no free lunch: On the hardness of choosing a correct big-m in bilevel optimization,” 2019. http://www. optimization-online.org/DB_FILE/2019/04/7172.pdf

2019
[32]

Solving linear bilevel problems using big-ms: Not all that glitters is gold,

S. Pineda and J. M. Morales, “Solving linear bilevel problems using big-ms: Not all that glitters is gold,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, pp. 2469–2471, May 2019

2019
[33]

On mathematical programming with indicator constraints,

P. Bonami, A. Lodi, A. Tramontani, and S. Wiese, “On mathematical programming with indicator constraints,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 151, pp. 191–223, Jun
[34]

Closing the gap in linear bilevel optimization: A new valid primal-dual inequality,

T. Kleinert, M. Labbé, M. Schmidt, and F. Plein, “Closing the gap in linear bilevel optimization: A new valid primal-dual inequality,” 2020

2020
[35]

Bilevel Optimization Problem Library v0.1,

T. Ralphs and S. Tahernejad, “Bilevel Optimization Problem Library v0.1,” 2020. https://coral.ise.lehigh.edu/data-sets/bilevel-instances/

2020
[36]

Near-optimal robust bilevel linear in- stances,

M. Besançon, M. F. Anjos, and L. Brotcorne, “Near-optimal robust bilevel linear in- stances,” Aug. 2020.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4009108

2020 doi
[37]

Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing,

J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. Shah, “Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing,”SIAM Review, vol. 59, pp. 65–98, 01 2017

2017
[38]

JuMP: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Optimization,

I. Dunning, J. Huchette, and M. Lubin, “JuMP: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Optimization,”SIAM Review, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 295–320, 2017

2017
[39]

MathOptInterface: a data structure for mathematical optimization problems,

B. Legat, O. Dowson, J. D. Garcia, and M. Lubin, “MathOptInterface: a data structure for mathematical optimization problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03447, 2020

2002 arXiv
[40]

The SCIP Optimization Suite 6.0,

A. Gleixner, M. Bastubbe, L. Eiﬂer, T. Gally, G. Gamrath, R. L. Gottwald, G. Hen- del, C. Hojny, T. Koch, M. E. Lübbecke, S. J. Maher, M. Miltenberger, B. Müller, M. E. Pfetsch, C. Puchert, D. Rehfeldt, F. Schlösser, C. Schubert, F. Serrano, Y. Shi- nano, M. Viernickel, M. Wal...

2018
[41]

JuliaPolyhedra/Polyhedra.jl: v0.5.1,

B.Legat,R.Deits,O.Evans,G.Goretkin,T.Koolen,J.Huchette,D.Oyama,M.Forets, guberger, R. Schwarz, E. Saba, and C. Coleman, “JuliaPolyhedra/Polyhedra.jl: v0.5.1,” may 2019. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3066026

2019 doi
[42]

JuliaPolyhe- dra/CDDLib.jl: v0.5.2,

B. Legat, R. Deits, M. Forets, D. Oyama, F. Pacaud, and E. Saba, “JuliaPolyhe- dra/CDDLib.jl: v0.5.2,” may 2019. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2671760

2019 doi
[2015]

10.1007/s10107-015-0891-4

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bilevel optimization: theory, algorithms and applications,

S. Dempe, “Bilevel optimization: theory, algorithms and applications,” 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Pessimistic Bilevel Op- timization,

W. Wiesemann, A. Tsoukalas, P.-M. Kleniati, and B. Rustem, “Pessimistic Bilevel Op- timization,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 23, pp. 353–380, jan 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Dempe, Foundations of bilevel programming

S. Dempe, Foundations of bilevel programming. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002

work page 2002

[4] [4]

Optimal structural design in nonsmooth mechanics,

G. E. Stavroulakis and H. Günzel, “Optimal structural design in nonsmooth mechanics,” in Multilevel Optimization: Algorithms and Applications, pp. 91–115, Springer, 1998

work page 1998

[5] [5]

Optimizing the operations of an aluminium smelter using non-linear bi- level programming,

M. G. Nicholls, “Optimizing the operations of an aluminium smelter using non-linear bi- level programming,” inMultilevel Optimization: Algorithms and Applications, pp. 117– 148, Springer, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [6]

Theories of bounded rationality,

H. A. Simon, “Theories of bounded rationality,”Decision and organization, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 161–176, 1972

work page 1972

[7] [7]

Rationality and bounded rationality,

R. J. Aumann, “Rationality and bounded rationality,” inCooperation: Game-Theoretic Approaches, pp. 219–231, Springer, 1997

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Robust game theory,

M. Aghassi and D. Bertsimas, “Robust game theory,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 107, pp. 231–273, Jun 2006

work page 2006