MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396938499 · doi:10.1287/moor.2021.0237

Robust Multiple Stopping—A Duality Approach

2024· article· en· W4396938499 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversity of WaterlooDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMathematicsDuality (order theory)Optimal stoppingMathematical optimizationStrong dualityMathematical economicsCalculus (dental)Applied mathematicsCombinatoricsOptimization problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a method to solve, theoretically and numerically, general optimal stopping problems. Our general setting allows for multiple exercise rights—that is, optimal multiple stopping—for a robust evaluation that accounts for model uncertainty with a dominated family of priors and for general reward processes driven by multidimensional jump-diffusions. Our approach relies on first establishing robust martingale dual representation results for the multiple stopping problem that satisfy appealing almost sure pathwise optimality properties. Next, we exploit these theoretical results to develop upper and lower bounds that, as we formally show, not only converge to the true solution asymptotically, but also constitute genuine prelimiting upper and lower bounds. We illustrate the applicability of our approach in a few examples and analyze the impact of model uncertainty on optimal multiple stopping strategies. Funding: R. J. A. Laeven received financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [Grants NWO-Vidi and NWO-Vici]. J. G. M. Schoenmakers received financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Excellence Cluster Math+ Berlin [Project AA4-2]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2021.0237 .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.622
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.092 · 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