Two-stage Linear Decision Rules for Multi-stage Stochastic Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-stage stochastic linear programs (MSLPs) are notoriously hard to solve in general. Linear decision rules (LDRs) yield an approximation of an MSLP by restricting the decisions at each stage to be an affine function of the observed uncertain parameters. Finding an optimal LDR is a static optimization problem that provides an upper bound on the optimal value of the MSLP, and, under certain assumptions, can be formulated as an explicit linear program. Similarly, as proposed by Kuhn, Wiesemann, and Georghiou (Math. Program., 130, 177-209, 2011) a lower bound for an MSLP can be obtained by restricting decisions in the dual of the MSLP to follow an LDR. We propose a new approximation approach for MSLPs, two-stage LDRs. The idea is to require only the state variables in an MSLP to follow an LDR, which is sufficient to obtain an approximation of an MSLP that is a two-stage stochastic linear program (2SLP). We similarly propose to apply LDR only to a subset of the variables in the dual of the MSLP, which yields a 2SLP approximation of the dual that provides a lower bound on the optimal value of the MSLP. Although solving the corresponding 2SLP approximations exactly is intractable in general, we investigate how approximate solution approaches that have been developed for solving 2SLP can be applied to solve these approximation problems, and derive statistical upper and lower bounds on the optimal value of the MSLP. In addition to potentially yielding better policies and bounds, this approach requires many fewer assumptions than are required to obtain an explicit reformulation when using the standard static LDR approach. A computational study on two example problems demonstrates that using a two-stage LDR can yield significantly better primal policies and modestly better dual policies than using policies based on a static LDR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".