Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real option valuation has traditionally been concerned with investment under project value uncertainty while assuming that the agent has perfect confidence in a specific model. However, agents do not generally have perfect confidence in their model and this ambiguity may affect their decisions. In addition, the value of real investments is not typically fully spanned by tradable assets because markets are incomplete as is typically the case in energy and commodities. In this paper, we account for the agent’s aversion to model ambiguity and address market incompleteness through the notion of robust indifference prices. We derive analytical results for the perpetual option to invest and the linear complementarity problem that the finite-time version of this problem satisfies. Ambiguity aversion has a number of effects on decision making some of which cannot be explained by altering the agent’s risk aversion. For example, ambiguity averse agents are found to exercise real options both earlier and later than their ambiguity neutral counterparts, depending on whether ambiguity stems from uncertainty in the dynamics of the project value or the dynamics of a hedging asset.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".