Distributionally Robust Optimization Under Distorted Expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal Decision Making Under Distorted Expectation with Partial Distribution Information Decision makers who are not risk neutral may evaluate expected values by distorting objective probabilities to reflect their risk attitudes, a phenomenon known as distorted expectations. This concept is widely applied in behavioral economics, insurance, finance, and other business domains. In “Distributionally Robust Optimization Under Distorted Expectations,” Cai, Li, and Mao study how decision makers using distorted expectations can optimize their decisions when only partial information about objective probabilities is available. They show that decision makers who are ambiguity averse can optimize their decisions as if they are risk averse with their risk attitudes characterized by a convex distortion function. This finding demonstrates why even non–risk-averse decision makers, such as those studied in the celebrated cumulative prospect theory, may consider it optimal to take risk-averse decisions when facing uncertainty about objective probabilities. Leveraging this finding, the authors show that a large class of distributionally robust optimization problems involving the use of distorted expectations can be tractably solved as convex programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".