Reverse Stress Testing for Supply Chain Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supply chains' increasing globalization and complexity have recently produced unpredictable disruptions, ripple effects, and cascading resulting failures. Proposed practices for managing these concerns include the advanced field of forward stress testing, where threats and predicted impacts to the supply chain are evaluated to harden the system against the most damaging scenarios. Such approaches are limited by the almost endless number of potential threat scenarios and cannot capture residual risk. In contrast to forward stress testing, this paper develops a reverse stress testing (RST) methodology that allows to predict which changes, with probabilistic certainty, across the supply chain network are most likely to cause a specified level of disruption at a specific entity in the network. The methodology was applied to the case of copper wire imports into the USA, a simple good which may have significant implications for national security. Results show that Canada, Chile, and Mexico are predicted to consistently be sources of disruptions at multiple loss levels. Other countries (e.g., Papua New Guinea) may contribute to small disruptions but be less important for the catastrophic losses of concern for decision makers. Other countries' disruptions would be catastrophic (e.g., Chile). The proposed methodology is the first case of reverse stress testing application in complex multilayered supply chains and can be used to address both risk and resilience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".