Technical Note—Risk-Averse Regret Minimization in Multistage Stochastic Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regret minimization has gained popularity in a wide range of decision-making problems under uncertainty because of its capacity to identify more opportunistic solutions than worst-case value optimization. Unfortunately, the rigidity of current worst-case regret models and scarcity of tractable solution methods have been serious obstacles in multistage applications. In “Risk-Averse Regret Minimization in Multistage Stochastic Programs,” M. Poursoltani, E. Delage, and A. Georghiou consider a multistage stochastic programming setting with a discrete scenario tree. They introduce the notion of the Δ-regret model, which bridges between the ex ante and ex post regret minimization paradigms that are currently used in the regret minimization literature for single-stage problems. The notion of Δ-regret minimization is investigated for the first time both theoretically and numerically in order to better understand its behavior under a set of popular risk measures.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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".