MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401457094 · doi:10.1287/moor.2023.0267

Uncertainty Propagation and Dynamic Robust Risk Measures

2024· article· en· W4401457094 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk measureAmbiguityMathematicsUncertainty quantificationInfimum and supremumConsistency (knowledge bases)Mathematical optimizationConvexityTime horizonCoherent risk measureSensitivity analysisSet (abstract data type)Measure (data warehouse)Computer scienceUncertainty analysisData miningStatisticsEconomicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a framework for quantifying propagation of uncertainty arising in a dynamic setting. Specifically, we define dynamic uncertainty sets designed explicitly for discrete stochastic processes over a finite time horizon. These dynamic uncertainty sets capture the uncertainty surrounding stochastic processes and models, accounting for factors such as distributional ambiguity. Examples of uncertainty sets include those induced by the Wasserstein distance and f-divergences. We further define dynamic robust risk measures as the supremum of all candidates’ risks within the uncertainty set. In an axiomatic way, we discuss conditions on the uncertainty sets that lead to well-known properties of dynamic robust risk measures, such as convexity and coherence. Furthermore, we discuss the necessary and sufficient properties of dynamic uncertainty sets that lead to time-consistencies of dynamic robust risk measures. We find that uncertainty sets stemming from f-divergences lead to strong time-consistency whereas the Wasserstein distance results in a new time-consistent notion of weak recursiveness. Moreover, we show that a dynamic robust risk measure is strong time-consistent or weak recursive if and only if it admits a recursive representation of one-step conditional robust risk measures arising from static uncertainty sets. Funding: M. Mailhot and S. M. Pesenti acknowledge support from the Canadian Statistical Sciences Institute (CANSSI) and from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grants RGPIN-2015-05447, DGECR-2020-00333, and RGPIN-2020-04289]. M. R. Moresco thanks the Horizon Postdoctoral Fellowship for the support.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.252 · 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