REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references
Tractable Reformulations of Distributionally Robust Two-stage Stochastic Programs with $\infty-$Wasserstein Distance
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper proves that whenever the ambiguity set is an $\infty$-Wasserstein ball and the technology matrix is entrywise nonnegative or nonpositive, the worst-case two-stage recourse cost is exactly a finite sample-based LP, with the same…
desk verdict Continuous-support results are solid and worth citing, but Theorem 4(ii)'s binary-case reformulation is false as printed — a fixable dualization error that needs correction before publication. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the $\infty$-Wasserstein ambiguity set $\mathcal{P}=\{P: P\{\tilde{\xi}\in\Xi\}=1,\; W_\infty(P,P_{\hat{\zeta}})\le \theta\}$, the ball of distributions within essential-supremum transport distance $\theta$ of the empirical distribution. The identity that carries the argument is Lemma 1's dual representation $$Z(x)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\in[N]}\sup_{\pi\in\mathbb{R}^\ell_+,\; \xi\in\Xi,\; \|\xi-\zeta^j\|_p\le\$\theta$} \{(h(x)-T(x)\xi_T)^\top\pi: W^\top\pi=Q\xi_q+q\},$$ which splits the worst-case expectation into one sup per sample. The key simplification is that when $p=\infty$ and $T(x)$ is entrywise nonnegative or nonpositive, the inner norm satisfies $\|T(x)^\top\pi\|_1 = e^\top|T(x)|^\top\pi$, making the sup-problem a linear program whose dual is the finite penalty reformulation. For binary random parameters, the paper adds the integrality of the dual polyhedron $\{(\pi,\xi_q)\in\mathbb{R}^\ell_+\times[0,1]^{m_1}: W^\top\pi=Q\xi_q+q\}$ and the binary-distance linearization $\|\xi_q-\zeta_q^j\|_p^p = \sum_{t\in C_0(\zeta_q^j)}\xi_{qt}+\sum_{t\in C_1(\zeta_q^j)}(1-\xi_{qt})$.
What would settle it
Take a small instance with $N=1$, $p=\infty$, and $T(x)\ge 0$ entrywise that satisfies the dual-feasibility assumption; compute the left-hand side of Lemma 1 by solving the sup-form (7a) directly as a linear program, and compare it with the proposed closed-form minimum (6). If the paper's claim is right, the two values coincide for every such instance; any strict gap would refute Theorem 1.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is an exact finite reformulation of the worst-case recourse function. For $p=\infty$ and $T(x)\ge 0$ or $T(x)\le 0$ entrywise, Theorem 1 shows that $Z(x) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\in[N]} \min_{y\in\mathbb{R}^{n_2}}\{ (Q\zeta_q^j+q)^\top y + \theta\|Q^\top y\|_1 : T(x)\zeta_T^j + Wy - \theta|T(x)|e \ge h(x)\}$. The proof starts from the duality identity of Lemma 1, replaces the $\xi_T$-supremum by its dual-norm value $\theta\|T(x)^\top\pi\|_1$, uses the sign condition to turn that norm into $e^\top |T(x)|^\top\pi$, and then takes the linear-programming dual in $y$. The paper's subsequent theorems give the same kind of exact reformulation for objective-only uncertainty (any $p$, with penalty $\theta\|Q^\top y\|_{p^*}$), for constraint-only uncertainty ($p=1$, evaluated through finitely many linear programs), and for binary random parameters under integral polyhedra conditions, with NP-hardness results showing these conditions cannot be dropped.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that no duality gap opens at any step: the second-stage dual must be feasible for every realization of the random parameters, and the conic programs used in the proofs must be strictly feasible, for otherwise the proposed finite programs are merely upper bounds.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Under the conditions of Theorem 1, a decision maker can solve the worst-case two-stage problem by solving one finite linear program in the original decision space, with sample index $j$ and robustness terms $\theta\|Q^\top y\|_1$ and $-\theta|T(x)|e$.
- For objective-only uncertainty, the same exactness holds for every reference norm $p\in[1,\infty]$, and the reformulation is a second-order cone program for rational $p$.
- The complexity results imply that without the sign condition or with other reference distances, evaluating the worst-case recourse cost is NP-hard even with a single sample, so the tractable cases are not an artifact of a weak complexity model.
- When the sufficient conditions fail, the proposed formulations remain valid upper bounds and become exact as the Wasserstein radius $\theta$ tends to zero, giving an asymptotically optimal approximation scheme.
Reading between the lines
- The penalty term $\theta\|Q^\top y\|_1$ can be read as a group-sparsity regularizer on the second-stage dual variables, suggesting that $\infty$-Wasserstein robustness and $\ell^1$-type regularization in empirical risk minimization are two faces of the same mechanism; the paper does not draw this connection.
- A natural testable extension is whether the same sign-condition-plus-$\infty$-Wasserstein recipe yields exact stagewise reformulations for multi-stage stochastic programs, since each stage's worst-case expectation dualizes separately; the paper only lists this as future work.
- For binary support, the integrality condition on the dual polyhedron is likely to hold for network-flow-type recourse structures, so the reformulations may transfer to stochastic server-location and contingency-planning models beyond the facility-location example.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies distributionally robust two-stage stochastic programs (DRTSP) in which the ambiguity set is a Wasserstein ball of radius θ centered at the empirical distribution, measured with the ∞-Wasserstein distance. The main claim is that, under sufficient conditions, the worst-case expected recourse cost Z(x) admits an exact, tractable reformulation that projects back onto the original decision space and reads as a conventional sample-based two-stage program with explicit robustness penalties. Tractable cases are claimed for continuous random parameters (general problems with p=∞ under a sign condition on the technology matrix, objective-only uncertainty for any p∈[1,∞], constraint-only uncertainty for p=1) and for binary-supported parameters (under integrality conditions on certain polyhedra). The paper also proves NP-hardness results intended to show that these tractable cases are sharp, and it includes a numerical illustration on a facility-location problem.
Significance. If the stated reformulations are correct, the paper would make an important contribution: it converts a class of distributionally robust two-stage problems into ordinary finite-sample two-stage linear or conic programs with interpretable data-dependent penalties, and its complexity results delineate how far the tractability boundary can be pushed. The continuous-support results, in particular Theorem 1, are plausible and well motivated, and the interpretability of the reformulations is a genuine strength. However, the paper ships a false statement of the main binary-support theorem (Theorem 4(ii) and Proposition 6(ii)), and the proof of Theorem 2 relies on an unverified strong-duality condition. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's exactness claims, so the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form; the errors appear fixable within the scope of the paper, but they require careful correction and re-proofing.
major comments (3)
- [Section 4, Theorem 4(ii), Eq. (26) and Proposition 6(ii), Eq. (29a)] The stated case split in Theorem 4(ii) is false. Take ℓ=2, m1=m2=1, N=1, θ=2, W=(1,-1)^T, h=(-1,-1)^T, Q=1, q=0, ζ_q^1=1, and T(x)=0_{2×1}. All hypotheses of Theorem 4(ii) hold: the second-stage dual is feasible for every ξ∈{0,1}×R, T is both entrywise nonnegative and nonpositive, and the polyhedron {π∈R^2_+, ξ_q∈[0,1] : π_1−π_2=ξ_q} is integral (its vertices are (0,0,0) and (1,0,1), with recession direction (1,1,0)). The true value from (4) is sup_{ξ_q∈{0,1}, π≥0, π_1−π_2=ξ_q} (−π_1−π_2)=0. The θ≥1 formula in (26) gives min_{y∈[−1,1]} y = −1, and the corresponding Proposition 6(ii) objective in (29a) gives min_{y∈[−1,1]} (y+(y)_+)=−1. Thus the printed formulas underestimate the worst-case recourse cost, and the exactness claim fails as stated. The source is visible in the proof after Eq. (27g), where the dual variables y are said to correspond to the constraint W^Tπ=Qζ_q^j+q, while the constraint in (27g) is W^Tπ=Qξ_q+q. The correct dual for θ≥1 is min_y { q^T y + e^T(Q^T y)_+ : Tζ_T^j + W y − θ|T|e ≥ h }, whereas the θ<1 case should read min_y { (Qζ_q^j+q)^T y : Tζ_T^j + W y − θ|T|e ≥ h }; the printed (26) swaps these objectives and attaches the e^T(Q^T y)_+ penalty to the wrong case.
- [Section 3.2, proof of Theorem 2, after Eq. (14a)] The proof asserts that "the inner supremum of (14a) is essentially strictly feasible" and then invokes strong duality of conic programming, but this condition is neither defined nor verified. The standing "Sufficiently Expensive Recourse" assumption only guarantees that for each fixed ξ_q there exists π≥0 with W^Tπ=Qξ_q+q; it does not by itself imply a Slater point for the coupled system consisting of the equality W^Tπ=Qξ_q+q, the nonnegativity π≥0, and the norm constraint ‖ξ_q−ζ_q^j‖_p≤θ. If the condition fails, the reformulation (13) is only an upper bound on Z(x). The proof should either supply a verification of the Slater-type condition under the stated assumptions or add the condition as an explicit assumption of Theorem 2.
- [Section 4, Theorem 4(ii) vs Proposition 6(ii)] The threshold conditions for the binary-objective case are inconsistent between the theorem and its deterministic reformulation. Theorem 4(ii) splits at θ≥1 versus θ<1, while Proposition 6(ii) uses the indicator I(θ>1). At θ=1 these give different formulas, although for binary ξ_q the value θ=1 behaves like the θ≥1 case because ‖ξ_q−ζ_q^j‖_∞≤1 permits any binary vector. This inconsistency should be resolved, and the indicator in Proposition 6(ii) should be I(θ≥1).
minor comments (6)
- [Abstract] The first sentence swaps the two decision stages: decision-makers first make a here-and-now decision and then select a wait-and-see policy after observing the uncertainty, not the reverse as currently written.
- [Proof of Theorem 2] The proof contains wrong cross-references: after Eq. (14a) it refers to "(7a)" where it means "(14a)", and later says "equivalent to (6)" where the target is (13). These should be corrected.
- [Proof of Theorem 4(i)] In the proof of Theorem 4(i), the text "Following the similar linearization and dualization steps in Theorem 4" should refer to Theorem 1, not Theorem 4.
- [Theorem 5] The integrality condition in Theorem 5 is stated for all integers κ∈Z_+, but the proof only needs κ=⌊θ^p⌋; the statement should clarify whether the condition is required for this specific κ or for the full family, since the former is a weaker and more natural hypothesis.
- [Proposition 6(ii)] In the statement of Proposition 6(ii), "RTSP (1)" should be "DRTSP (1)".
- [Section 6, Table 2] The column "Confidence Interval" is missing entries for most rows of Table 2, even though the text says 95% confidence intervals were computed; the table should either be completed or the text should state which entries are omitted.
Circularity Check
No circularity: all load-bearing steps derive from external duality theorems and standard LP/conic dualization; self-citations are not load-bearing.
full rationale
The paper's central chain is Lemma 1 (importing Bertsimas et al. 2018a, Theorem 5, an external result) followed by LP strong duality for the recourse dual and dual-norm identities for the Wasserstein radius. The sign condition on T(x) is used only to linearize ||T(x)^T pi||_1 as e^T |T(x)|^T pi, which is a genuine structural simplification, not an input containing the conclusion. No parameter is fitted and no quantity is renamed as a prediction: the reformulations are exact convex programs with explicit penalty terms, and the paper does not calibrate those penalties to the quantities it later reports. The author's self-citations (Xie and Ahmed 2018a,b; Xie 2018; Zhang et al. 2018a) appear in the literature review and peripheral remarks; none carries the proof of Theorems 1-6 or Propositions 1-9. The strongest correctness concern in the manuscript is non-circular: in Theorem 4(ii)/Proposition 6(ii), the proof says 'Let y denote the dual variables of constraints W^T pi = Q zeta_q^j + q' while constraint (27g) is W^T pi = Q xi_q + q, and the e^T(Q^T y)_+ term appears to be assigned to the wrong theta-regime. A false or typo-ridden dualization is an algebraic error, not a reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs, so it does not change the circularity score. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption Fixed recourse and separable uncertainty: the recourse matrix W is fixed and support Xi = Xi_q x Xi_T
- domain assumption Sufficiently Expensive Recourse: dual of second-stage problem (2) is feasible for all xi in Xi
- standard math Strong duality of infinity-Wasserstein DRO (Bertsimas et al. 2018a, Theorem 5)
- ad hoc to paper Entrywise sign condition on technology matrix T(x): all entries nonnegative or all nonpositive
- ad hoc to paper Integrality of specific polyhedra in binary-support theorems
- ad hoc to paper Strong duality of the inner supremum in Theorem 2 ('essentially strictly feasible')
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Tractable Reformulations of Distributionally Robust Two-stage Stochastic Programs with $\infty-$Wasserstein Distance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VACR5DIC
@misc{pith2026190808454,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Tractable Reformulations of Distributionally Robust Two-stage Stochastic Programs with $\infty-$Wasserstein Distance},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VACR5DIC}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08454}
}
abstract
In the optimization under uncertainty, decision-makers first select a wait-and-see policy before any realization of uncertainty and then place a here-and-now decision after the uncertainty has been observed. Two-stage stochastic programming is a popular modeling paradigm for the optimization under uncertainty that the decision-makers first specifies a probability distribution, and then seek the best decisions to jointly optimize the deterministic wait-and-see and expected here-and-now costs. In practice, such a probability distribution may not be fully available but is probably observable through an empirical dataset. Therefore, this paper studies distributionally robust two-stage stochastic program (DRTSP) which jointly optimizes the deterministic wait-and-see and worst-case expected here-and-now costs, and the probability distribution comes from a family of distributions which are centered at the empirical distribution using $\infty-$Wasserstein metric. There have been successful developments on deriving tractable approximations of the worst-case expected here-and-now cost in DRTSP. Unfortunately, limited results on exact tractable reformulations of DRTSP. This paper fills this gap by providing sufficient conditions under which the worst-case expected here-and-now cost in DRTSP can be efficiently computed via a tractable convex program. By exploring the properties of binary variables, the developed reformulation techniques are extended to DRTSP with binary random parameters. The main tractable reformulations in this paper are projected into the original decision space and thus can be interpreted as conventional two-stage stochastic programs under discrete support with extra penalty terms enforcing the robustness. These tractable results are further demonstrated to be sharp through complexity analysis.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Ahmed, S. (2010). Two-stage stochastic integer programming: A brief introduction. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science
work page 2010
-
[2]
Bayraksan, G. and Love, D. K. (2015). Data-driven stochastic programming using phi-divergences. In The Operations Research Revolution , pages 1--19. INFORMS
work page 2015
-
[3]
Ben-Tal, A., Den Hertog, D., De Waegenaere, A., Melenberg, B., and Rennen, G. (2013). Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science , 59(2):341--357
work page 2013
-
[4]
Ben-Tal, A., El Ghaoui, L., and Nemirovski, A. (2009). Robust optimization , volume 28. Princeton University Press
work page 2009
-
[5]
Ben-Tal, A. and Nemirovski, A. (2001). Lectures on modern convex optimization: analysis, algorithms, and engineering applications , volume 2. SIAM
work page 2001
-
[6]
V., Natarajan, K., and Teo, C.-P
Bertsimas, D., Doan, X. V., Natarajan, K., and Teo, C.-P. (2010). Models for minimax stochastic linear optimization problems with risk aversion. Mathematics of Operations Research , 35(3):580--602
work page 2010
-
[7]
Bertsimas, D., Shtern, S., and Sturt, B. (2018a). A data-driven approach for multi-stage linear optimization. Available at Optimization Online
work page 2018
-
[8]
Bertsimas, D., Shtern, S., and Sturt, B. (2019). Two-stage sample robust optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07142
work page Pith review arXiv 2019
Show all 51 references
-
[9]
Bertsimas, D., Sim, M., and Zhang, M. (2018b). Adaptive distributionally robust optimization. Management Science , 65(2):604--618
2018
-
[10]
Blanchet, J., Kang, Y., and Murthy, K. (2016). Robust wasserstein profile inference and applications to machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05627
2016 arXiv
-
[11]
and Murthy, K
Blanchet, J. and Murthy, K. (2019). Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport. Mathematics of Operations Research , 44(2):565--600
2019
-
[12]
Chen, Z., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W. (2018). Data-driven chance constrained programs over wasserstein balls. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00210
2018 arXiv
-
[13]
Chen, Z., Sim, M., and Xiong, P. (2019). Robust stochastic optimization. Available at Optimization Online
2019
-
[14]
and Xie, W
Chen, Z. and Xie, W. (2019). Sharing the value-at-risk under distributional ambiguity. Available at Optimization Online
2019
-
[15]
Cui, T., Ouyang, Y., and Shen, Z.-J. M. (2010). Reliable facility location under the risk of disruptions. Operations Research , 58(4):998--1011
2010
-
[16]
and Qiao, W
Dai, T. and Qiao, W. (2013). Trading wind power in a competitive electricity market using stochastic programing and game theory. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , 4(3):805--815
2013
-
[17]
and Ye, Y
Delage, E. and Ye, Y. (2010). Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Operations Research , 58(3):595--612
2010
-
[18]
Gao, R., Chen, X., and Kleywegt, A. J. (2017). Wasserstein distributional robustness and regularization in statistical learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06050
2017 arXiv
-
[19]
and Kleywegt, A
Gao, R. and Kleywegt, A. J. (2016). Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with wasserstein distance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02199
2016 arXiv
-
[20]
R., Shortt, R
Givens, C. R., Shortt, R. M., et al. (1984). A class of wasserstein metrics for probability distributions. The Michigan Mathematical Journal , 31(2):231--240
1984
-
[21]
and Sim, M
Goh, J. and Sim, M. (2010). Distributionally robust optimization and its tractable approximations. Operations research , 58(4-part-1):902--917
2010
-
[22]
Golari, M., Fan, N., and Wang, J. (2014). Two-stage stochastic optimal islanding operations under severe multiple contingencies in power grids. Electric Power Systems Research , 114:68--77
2014
-
[23]
Hanasusanto, G. A. and Kuhn, D. (2018). Conic programming reformulations of two-stage distributionally robust linear programs over wasserstein balls. Operations Research , 66(3):849--869
2018
-
[24]
A., Roitch, V., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W
Hanasusanto, G. A., Roitch, V., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W. (2015). A distributionally robust perspective on uncertainty quantification and chance constrained programming. Mathematical Programming , 151:35--62
2015
-
[25]
A., Roitch, V., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W
Hanasusanto, G. A., Roitch, V., Kuhn, D., and Wiesemann, W. (2017). Ambiguous joint chance constraints under mean and dispersion information. Operations Research , 65(3):751--767
2017
-
[26]
and Hong, L
Hu, Z. and Hong, L. J. (2012). Kullback-leibler divergence constrained distributionally robust optimization. Available at http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_FILE/2012/11/3677.pdf
2012
-
[27]
and Hu, G
Hu, Z. and Hu, G. (2016). A two-stage stochastic programming model for lot-sizing and scheduling under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics , 180:198--207
2016
-
[28]
and Guan, Y
Jiang, R. and Guan, Y. (2016). Data-driven chance constrained stochastic program. Mathematical Programming , 158:291--327
2016
-
[29]
and Guan, Y
Jiang, R. and Guan, Y. (2018). Risk-averse two-stage stochastic program with distributional ambiguity. Operations Research , 66(5):1390--1405
2018
-
[30]
Kara, S. S. and Onut, S. (2010). A stochastic optimization approach for paper recycling reverse logistics network design under uncertainty. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology , 7(4):717--730
2010
-
[31]
Li, B., Jiang, R., and Mathieu, J. L. (2017). Ambiguous risk constraints with moment and unimodality information. Mathematical Programming
2017
-
[32]
Li, M., Guo, P., Fang, S., and Zhang, L. (2013). An inexact fuzzy parameter two-stage stochastic programming model for irrigation water allocation under uncertainty. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment , 27(6):1441--1452
2013
-
[33]
Lu, M., Ran, L., and Shen, Z.-J. M. (2015). Reliable facility location design under uncertain correlated disruptions. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management , 17(4):445--455
2015
-
[34]
and Mehrotra, S
Luo, F. and Mehrotra, S. (2017). Decomposition algorithm for distributionally robust optimization using wasserstein metric. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03920
2017 arXiv
-
[35]
and Kuhn, D
Mohajerin Esfahani, P. and Kuhn, D. (2017). Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Mathematical Programming
2017
-
[36]
and Teo, C.-P
Natarajan, K. and Teo, C.-P. (2017). On reduced semidefinite programs for second order moment bounds with applications. Mathematical Programming , 161(1):487--518
2017
-
[37]
and Mehrotra, S
Rahimian, H. and Mehrotra, S. (2019). Distributionally robust optimization: A review. Available at Optimization Online
2019
-
[38]
Rockafellar, R. T. (1970). Convex analysis . Princeton university press
1970
-
[39]
Rudin, W. et al. (1964). Principles of mathematical analysis , volume 3. McGraw-hill New York
1964
-
[40]
Schrijver, A. (1998). Theory of linear and integer programming . John Wiley & Sons
1998
-
[41]
Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D., and Ruszczy \'n ski, A. (2009). Lectures on stochastic programming: modeling and theory , volume 9. SIAM
2009
-
[42]
Wang, Q., Wang, J., and Guan, Y. (2012). Stochastic unit commitment with uncertain demand response. IEEE Transactions on power systems , 28(1):562--563
2012
-
[43]
Wiesemann, W., Kuhn, D., and Sim, M. (2014). Distributionally robust convex optimization. Operations Research , 62(6):1358--1376
2014
-
[44]
Wu, H., Shahidehpour, M., Li, Z., and Tian, W. (2014). Chance-constrained day-ahead scheduling in stochastic power system operation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 29(4):1583--1591
2014
-
[45]
Xie, W. (2018). On distributionally robust chance constrained program with wasserstein distance. Available at Optimization Online
2018
-
[46]
and Ahmed, S
Xie, W. and Ahmed, S. (2018a). Distributionally robust chance constrained optimal power flow with renewables: A conic reformulation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 33(2):1860--1867
2018
-
[47]
and Ahmed, S
Xie, W. and Ahmed, S. (2018b). On deterministic reformulations of distributionally robust joint chance constrained optimization problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 28(2):1151--1182
2018
-
[48]
and Ahmed, S
Xie, W. and Ahmed, S. (2019). Bicriteria approximation of chance constrained covering problems. Operations Research (In Press)
2019
-
[49]
Zhang, J., Xie, W., and Sarin, S. C. (2018a). Multi-product newsvendor problem with customer-driven demand substitution: A stochastic integer program perspective. Available at Optimization Online
2018
-
[50]
Zhang, Y., Jiang, R., and Shen, S. (2018b). Ambiguous chance-constrained binary programs under mean-covariance information. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 28(4):2922--2944
2018
-
[51]
and Guan, Y
Zhao, C. and Guan, Y. (2018). Data-driven risk-averse stochastic optimization with wasserstein metric. Operations Research Letters , 46(2):262--267
2018
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.