Two-stage and Lagrangian Dual Decision Rules for Multistage Adaptive Robust Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we design primal and dual bounding methods for multistage adaptive robust optimization (MSARO) problems motivated by two decision rules rooted in the stochastic programming literature. From the primal perspective, this is achieved by applying decision rules that restrict the functional forms of only a certain subset of decision variables resulting in an approximation of MSARO as a two-stage adjustable robust optimization problem. We leverage the two-stage robust optimization literature in the solution of this approximation. From the dual perspective, decision rules are applied to the Lagrangian multipliers of a Lagrangian dual of MSARO, resulting in a two-stage stochastic optimization problem. As the quality of the resulting dual bound depends on the distribution chosen when developing the dual formulation, we define a distribution optimization problem with the aim of optimizing the obtained bound and develop solution methods tailored to the nature of the recourse variables. Our framework is general-purpose and does not require strong assumptions such as a stage-wise independent uncertainty set, and can consider integer recourse variables. Computational experiments on newsvendor, location-transportation, and capital budgeting problems show that our bounds yield considerably smaller optimality gaps compared to the existing methods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".