<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Optimisation on Aayush Bajaj's Augmenting Infrastructure</title><link>https://abaj.ai/tags/optimisation/</link><description>Recent content in Optimisation on Aayush Bajaj's Augmenting Infrastructure</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><copyright>© 2026 Aayush Bajaj</copyright><lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:20:16 +1000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://abaj.ai/tags/optimisation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Robust</title><link>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/robust/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:43:56 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/robust/</guid><description>&lt;p>every &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/linear/"
 
 
>linear program&lt;/a> you have ever written down was a lie: the coefficients came from measurements, forecasts and vendor spreadsheets, and the optimal vertex — sitting, by design, on the boundary of the feasible region — shatters the moment any of them wobbles.&lt;span class="margin-note" data-note="an optimal basic solution binds n constraints with zero slack; it is maximally exposed to data error by construction">
 &lt;span class="margin-note-indicator">𐃏&lt;/span>
&lt;/span>

robust optimisation is the pessimist&amp;rsquo;s response: declare a set \(\mathcal{U}\) of realisations you refuse to be hurt by, and demand feasibility for &lt;em>every&lt;/em> member of it. no distributions, no expectations, no scenarios — just a set and a worst case. the surprise, and the reason the field exists, is that this worst case can usually be folded back into a deterministic problem of the same (or nearly the same) complexity class.&lt;sup id="fnref:1">&lt;a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref">1&lt;/a>&lt;/sup>&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Stochastic</title><link>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/stochastic/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:43:56 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/stochastic/</guid><description>&lt;p>a &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/linear/"
 
 
>linear program&lt;/a> assumes you know the data. stochastic programming admits that you do not — some coefficients are random — but insists you know their &lt;em>distribution&lt;/em>, and asks for the decision that is best &lt;strong>on average&lt;/strong>.&lt;span class="margin-note" data-note="dantzig again: his 1955 paper founded the field eight years after he invented simplex. beale published the same idea the same year">
 &lt;span class="margin-note-indicator">𐃏&lt;/span>
&lt;/span>

the structural insight that makes this a paradigm rather than a hack: split the decision in two. commit to \(x\) now, before the coin is flipped; after uncertainty resolves, take a corrective &lt;em>recourse&lt;/em> action \(y\) that adapts to whatever happened. the objective charges you for both, weighting the second stage by expectation.&lt;sup id="fnref:1">&lt;a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref">1&lt;/a>&lt;/sup>&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Integer Programming</title><link>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/integer/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 01:43:39 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/integer/</guid><description>&lt;p>take a &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/linear/"
 
 
>linear program&lt;/a> and add one word — &lt;em>integer&lt;/em> — and the complexity class jumps from polynomial to NP-hard. that word buys expressive power nothing continuous can match: yes/no decisions, either/or logic, fixed costs, sequencing, assignment. integer programming is the lingua franca of operations research precisely because &amp;ldquo;decide&amp;rdquo; is not a convex verb.&lt;span class="margin-note" data-note="commercial solvers — gurobi, cplex, scip — routinely crack instances with millions of variables, np-hardness notwithstanding. hard in the worst case is not hard on your case">
 &lt;span class="margin-note-indicator">𐃏&lt;/span>
&lt;/span>
&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Quadratic Programming</title><link>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/quadratic/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 01:43:39 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/quadratic/</guid><description>&lt;p>promote the objective of a &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/linear/"
 
 
>linear program&lt;/a> from a plane to a bowl and you get quadratic programming: minimise a quadratic function over a polyhedron. it is the smallest step beyond LP, yet it captures a startling share of applied mathematics — support vector machines, portfolio selection, ridge regression, model-predictive control — because &amp;ldquo;squared penalty subject to linear rules&amp;rdquo; is how half the world states its preferences.&lt;span class="margin-note" data-note="the other half states them as expected log-wealth and gets convex programming anyway">
 &lt;span class="margin-note-indicator">𐃏&lt;/span>
&lt;/span>
&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Linear Programming</title><link>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/linear/</link><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 21:02:56 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/linear/</guid><description>&lt;p>&amp;ldquo;programming&amp;rdquo; here means &lt;em>planning&lt;/em>, not coding — the word predates the software sense.&lt;span class="margin-note" data-note="dantzig invented the simplex method in 1947 for air-force logistics planning; kantorovich had the theory in 1939 but the soviets sat on it">
 &lt;span class="margin-note-indicator">𐃏&lt;/span>
&lt;/span>

a linear program optimises a linear objective over a region carved out by linear inequalities. it is the base camp of mathematical programming: &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/quadratic/"
 
 
>quadratic&lt;/a>, &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/integer/"
 
 
>integer&lt;/a> and &lt;a
 href="https://abaj.ai/wiki/ccs/programming/paradigms/non-linear/"
 
 
>non-linear&lt;/a> programming all generalise it in one direction or another, and all of them lean on LP machinery (relaxations, duals, warm starts) to get anything done. clrs devotes chapter 29 to it (Cormen, Thomas H. and Leiserson, Charles E. and Rivest, Ronald L. and Stein, Clifford, 2009).&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>No Free Lunch Theorem</title><link>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ml/theory/no-free-lunch/</link><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 21:02:56 +1000</pubDate><guid>https://abaj.ai/wiki/ml/theory/no-free-lunch/</guid><description>&lt;p>averaged over &lt;em>all possible problems&lt;/em>, every learning algorithm is exactly as good as random guessing — and every optimiser is exactly as good as blind enumeration.&lt;span class="margin-note" data-note="the name comes from the american saloon practice of &amp;#39;free&amp;#39; lunches that you paid for in beer">
 &lt;span class="margin-note-indicator">𐃏&lt;/span>
&lt;/span>

this sounds like nihilism but is actually the sharpest possible argument &lt;em>for&lt;/em> inductive bias: an algorithm can only beat chance on some problems by losing to chance on others, so the whole game of machine learning is choosing whose lunch to eat.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>