MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289823579 · doi:10.1109/tac.2022.3195381

On Optimizing the Conditional Value-at-Risk of a Maximum Cost for Risk-Averse Safety Analysis

2022· article· en· W4289823579 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret P. Chapman, Michael Fauß, Kevin M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCVARMathematical optimizationMarkov decision processState spaceComputer scienceDynamic programmingConstraint (computer-aided design)Markov processMathematicsRisk managementExpected shortfallStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR), a risk functional from finance, has been growing in the control systems community due to its intuitive interpretation and axiomatic foundation. We consider a nonstandard optimal control problem in which the goal is to minimize the CVaR of a maximum random cost subject to a Borel-space Markov decision process. The objective represents the maximum departure from a desired operating region averaged over a given fraction of the worst cases. This problem provides a safety criterion for a stochastic system that is informed by both theprobabilityandseverityof the potential consequences of the system’s behavior. In contrast, existing safety analysis frameworks apply stagewise risk constraints or assess the probability of constraint violation without quantifying the potential severity of the violation. To the best of our knowledge, the problem of interest has not been solved. To solve the problem, we propose and study a family of stochastic dynamic programs on an augmented state space. We prove that the optimal CVaR of a maximum random cost enjoys an equivalent representation in terms of the solutions to these dynamic programs under appropriate assumptions. For each dynamic program, we show the existence of an optimal policy that depends on the dynamics of an augmented state under the assumptions. In a numerical example, we illustrate how our safety analysis framework is useful for assessing the severity of combined sewer overflows under precipitation uncertainty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207