Contextual Scenario Generation for Two-Stage Stochastic Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-stage stochastic programs (2SPs) are widely used for decision-making under uncertainty, but their practical deployment is often limited by the large number of scenarios needed to approximate the conditional distribution of uncertain outcomes. We study contextual scenario generation: given contextual information, learn to produce a small, user-specified set of surrogate scenarios that, when used as input into the 2SP, lead to high-quality 2SP decisions. Existing scenario generation methods either ignore contextual information or are computationally burdensome in this setting. We propose contextual scenario generation (CSG), which learns a mapping from context to a set of surrogate scenarios. We develop two complementary methodologies: (i) a distributional approach that learns a mapping from context to scenarios by minimizing a kernel-based distance to the conditional distribution, and (ii) a task-based approach that selects the mapping to optimize decision quality via differentiating through a learned surrogate of the downstream 2SP objective. Both approaches are broadly applicable and require only repeated solution of the underlying subproblems and 2SPs defined on the generated scenarios. We provide finite-sample generalization guarantees and demonstrate strong empirical performance across multiple 2SP classes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".