Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

A Primal Perspective on Distributionally Robust Optimization: An Investigation on Modeling and Solution Strategies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A primal cutting-set method solves distributionally robust optimization without dual reformulations.

desk verdict A credible primal decomposition framework for DRO with a genuinely new AS-DRO model class, but the advertised unbounded-sample-space convergence is conditional on extra, unverified hypotheses on the algorithm's iterates; still deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04123 v1 pith:23NZUYQ4 submitted 2026-08-04 math.OC math.PR

Yiqi Tian , Bo Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCmath.PR MSC 90C1590C4790C11
keywords distributionallyrobustoptimizationprimaldecompositionbilevelcuttingsetambiguityalmost-sureDROchanceconstraintslocalinformationWasserstein
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that distributionally robust optimization (DRO) can be solved from the primal side, directly manipulating distributions in the ambiguity set, rather than through duality-based reformulations of the inner worst-case expectation. Its algorithmic framework, BiCS, iteratively generates distribution cuts, each consisting of a finite set of scenarios together with probability weights, and re-optimizes those weights as the decision changes. The authors claim this framework converges to an $\epsilon$-optimal solution for standard DRO, almost-sure DRO, distributionally robust chance-constrained programs, and DRO with local-information ambiguity sets, under a light-tail regularity condition. If correct, this gives a unified and intuitive solution strategy for DRO models that lack tractable dual counterparts, with numerical evidence on moment and Wasserstein ambiguity sets showing the column-generation variants solve all tested instances where reformulations often time out.

What carries the argument

The central object is the distribution cut: a finite scenario set plus the probability weights assigned to those scenarios, treated as a two-level object in which scenarios are found first and weights are optimized second. Algorithm 1 (BiCS) works by maintaining a pooled parametric distribution cut, keeping all scenarios generated by the oracle and re-optimizing the weights jointly over the union, rather than freezing them as in a fixed cut. Proposition 7 orders fixed, blockwise, and pooled cuts by tightness, and Example 2 shows the inclusions can be strict. The decisive identity that makes the subproblem finite-dimensional is Proposition 8: under the light-tail domination condition, a classical support-selection lemma gives a worst-case distribution supported on at most $T_m+1$ atoms, so Oracle 1 solves a finite mathematical program. Oracle 2 instead separates probability assignment, a linear pricing master problem, from scenario search, a pricing subproblem with reduced cost $f_m-\alpha_m-\sum_t\beta_{mt}g_t$.

What would settle it

Take $A=\mathbb{R}$, moment functions $g_{t_0}(a)=a^2$ and $g_1(a)=a^3$ with $\mathbb{E}[a^2]\le 1$ and $\mathbb{E}[a^3]\le 1$, and $f(a,x)=x a^3$, so Assumption 2 fails because $|g_1|/g_{t_0}=|a|$ is unbounded. Run BiCS with Oracle 2 from several starting scenario sets: if it terminates with an $\epsilon$-optimal certificate for all $x$ in a compact set, the light-tail condition is not necessary for the stated guarantees; if it cycles or fails to terminate, the assumption is doing the load-bearing work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that every distributionally robust constraint $\sup_{P\in\mathcal{P}_m}\mathbb{E}_{P}[f_m(a_m,x)]\le b_m$ can be handled exactly in the primal space by a bilevel cutting-set loop. On the outer level, a master problem solves the DRO restricted to a finite scenario set $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_m$, re-optimizing probability weights over the pooled support; on the inner level, an oracle subproblem maximizes the expected violation over the full ambiguity set and returns a finite-support worst-case distribution whose entire support is appended. Under Assumption 2, a coercive moment function dominates the tails of the cost and moment functions, and the subproblem admits an exact representation with at most $T_m+1$ atoms (Oracle 1) and a finitely terminating column-generation oracle (Oracle 2). The authors extend the same cut loop to AS-DRO by replacing $f_m$ with its positive-part violation slack, to DRCCPs by replacing the objective with a satisfaction indicator, and to local-information ambiguity sets by adding regional membership constraints. The claim is supported by numerical experiments on moment-inequality and Wasserstein ambiguity sets, where Oracle 2 and its enhanced variant solve 100% of tested instances within about 1500 seconds.

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 2 requires one nonnegative moment function $g_{t_0}$ to be coercive and to dominate the tails of the cost function and all other moment functions, so that probability mass cannot escape to infinity unchecked; if this growth condition fails, the finite-support oracle representation, the finite termination of Oracle 2, and the convergence guarantee of BiCS are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A DRO model with an ambiguity set expressible in the generalized moment form becomes solvable by the same BiCS loop whether or not a compact dual reformulation is known, so modeling effort can shift from finding duals to designing oracles.
  • The pooled parametric cut yields a feasible region at least as large as fixed or blockwise cuts on the same support history, so scenario reuse across iterations tightens the master monotonically in the sense of Proposition 7.
  • Because AS-DRO and DRCCP are handled by changing only the inner objective, the framework provides one algorithmic template across expectation-based, almost-sure, and chance-constrained distributional robustness.
  • Bound-based early stopping lets the column-generation oracle stop as soon as it can certify $\epsilon$-feasibility of the current decision, which the experiments show reduces subproblem time substantially.
  • When second-order moment or $\ell_2$-Wasserstein ambiguity sets make dual reformulations unavailable or intractable, BiCS with Oracle 2 still converges on the tested instances, suggesting that primal decomposition can extend DRO's practical reach.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the numerical scaling holds beyond the reported instances, the practical bottleneck in DRO shifts from finding a tractable dual reformulation to building a fast pricing subproblem, so future work should concentrate on pricing subproblem designs for richer regional and moment structures.
  • The $T_m+1$ support-size bound suggests that the difficulty of Oracle 1 grows with the number of moment and local-information constraints; for high-dimensional ambiguity sets, the column-generation variant appears to be the more promising route, a conclusion the paper's own runtime tables already hint at.
  • The paper's distinction between sample space and induced support implies a testable prediction: for ambiguity sets with local mass restrictions, AS-DRO feasibility should differ from RO feasibility on events that have positive measure under no admissible distribution, which could be checked on real data where such nonempty zero-probability events occur.
  • A natural extension the authors list as future work is decision-dependent ambiguity sets; if the pooling mechanism is modified so retained scenarios depend on $x$, the proof of finite termination would need a new compactness argument, making this a concrete next stress test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a primal (distribution-level) cutting-plane framework, BiCS, for single-stage distributionally robust optimization with generalized moment ambiguity sets on closed, potentially unbounded sample spaces. The master problem optimizes over a finite scenario pool with re-optimized probability weights, while the subproblem oracle returns a finite-support worst-case distribution; two oracle variants are proposed (a finite mathematical program and a column-generation scheme). The authors prove epsilon-optimality upon termination and finite termination under additional compactness and continuity conditions, and they extend the framework to almost-sure DRO, distributionally robust chance-constrained programs, and ambiguity sets with local information. Numerical experiments on moment and Wasserstein ambiguity sets show that the column-generation variants solve all tested instances within the time limit, often substantially faster than the examined dual reformulations.

Significance. If the stated conditional guarantees are accepted, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: it provides a unified primal viewpoint across standard DRO, AS-DRO, DRCCP, and local-information ambiguity sets, and it gives explicit finite-support oracle constructions that make worst-case distributions interpretable. The comparison of fixed, blockwise, and pooled parametric distribution cuts in Propositions 6 and 7 is a genuine conceptual contribution, and the numerical study is broad and consistently reported. The main proofs are structurally coherent, and the paper is transparent about several technical conditions. However, the central advertised reach---finite termination for closed, potentially unbounded sample spaces---rests on additional algorithm-dependent hypotheses that are not derived from the standing assumptions, and the numerical experiments use compact sample spaces, so the unbounded-space claim is substantially narrower than the abstract and introduction suggest. The conditional results themselves appear defensible, but the paper's framing needs revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4.2.2, Theorem 11] The finite-termination proof of Oracle 2 assumes, for some R>0, a uniform tail bound sup_l sup_{a:g_t0(a)>R} rho_l(a) <= epsilon/2 and equicontinuity of {rho_l|K_R} over l>=l0. These are properties of the dual iterates (alpha_l,beta_l) generated by Algorithm 2, not consequences of Assumptions 1 and 2. In particular, if beta_{t0}^{(l)} tends to zero, the coercivity and tail-domination in Assumption 2 do not force rho_l to be uniformly small at infinity, and if dual variables are unbounded, equicontinuity can fail. Consequently, the stated finite-termination guarantee for closed, unbounded sample spaces is not established by the standing assumptions. The authors should either prove these conditions for the relevant ambiguity-set families, state Theorem 11 explicitly as conditional on them, or restrict the unbounded-space claim accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.3.1, Theorem 4] The finite-termination part of Theorem 4 assumes that the supporting scenarios generated in Step 3 lie in a fixed compact set C_m uniformly over all incumbents. This is an additional algorithm-dependent condition that is not derived from the well-posedness assumptions or from Assumption 1. The first part of Theorem 4 only gives epsilon-optimality conditional on termination, so the advertised convergence guarantee for BiCS on closed, potentially unbounded sample spaces is weaker than the wording suggests. This assumption should be stated prominently, and the abstract/introduction should not claim unconditional finite termination in the unbounded case.
  3. [Sections 4-6 and the unbounded-space claims] The paper repeatedly emphasizes the closed, potentially unbounded sample-space setting, but the numerical experiments in Section 6 use only compact budgeted deviation sets A_i = {r in [0,1]^|J| : sum_j r_j <= Gamma_i}. These experiments therefore cannot validate the unbounded-sample-space hypotheses behind Theorem 11 or the compact-support condition in Theorem 4. The conclusion that BiCS 'applies across the considered models' should be separated from the narrower claim that the computed instances happen to satisfy the extra compactness/equicontinuity conditions. This is a framing issue, not a mathematical error in the conditional results, but it affects the central contribution as advertised.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 14 proof] The proof of Step 2 contains the unresolved placeholder 'Proposition??'; it should refer to the relevant almost-sure-equivalence statement (likely Theorem 12 or a lemma derived from it).
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 12 and Definition 2] The definition of X_AS-DRO in Theorem 12 is typeset in a confusing way: 'inf_{P_m in P_m} P_m[...] P_m-a.s.= 1' should simply state that P_m({f_m(·,x) <= b_m}) = 1 for every P_m in P_m.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4] The AS-DRO row in Table 3 is garbled; the constraint text 'inf ... >= 1 - x <= 1' needs to be reformatted so that the feasible-range column is readable.
  4. [Algorithm 1, Step 1 and Section 3.4.1] The text after equation (7) asserts that P_m(hatA_m) is nonempty throughout the algorithm 'by Step 1,' but Step 1 merely says to select a finite initial set; it does not guarantee that a feasible probability weight vector exists on that initial support. The initialization should specify how to choose scenarios that support a feasible distribution, or explicitly invoke the infeasibility-handling machinery when no such distribution exists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the BiCS convergence claims are proved from stated assumptions; the single overlapping-author citation is historical and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3 proves finite-support approximation of expectations from measure-theoretic arguments; Proposition 8 establishes exactness of Oracle 1 via Richter–Rogosinski, an external classical result; Theorem 11 proves finite termination of Oracle 2 from the stated light-tail and iterate equicontinuity assumptions; and Theorem 4 reduces BiCS correctness to the epsilon/2 oracle certificate plus the relaxation property of the master problem. No quantity is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction, and no central claim is defined in terms of its own conclusion. The only overlapping-author citation is [41], which is explicitly credited only for the basic compact-sample-space oracle idea in two-stage DRO; the present single-stage and unbounded-space analyses are proved in this paper independently. That self-citation is therefore not load-bearing. Two scope caveats should be noted, but they are correctness or completeness issues rather than circularity: (i) Theorem 11 assumes iterate-dependent conditions, namely sup_l sup_{a:g_t0(a)>R} rho_l(a) <= epsilon/2 and equicontinuity of the restricted reduced-cost family, plus exact PSP solves, so finite termination on closed unbounded sample spaces is conditional on properties of the generated dual sequences; the numerical experiments use compact budgeted sets A_i and hence do not empirically verify those hypotheses. (ii) The proof of Theorem 14 contains an unresolved reference 'By Proposition??', which is a missing-reference/completeness defect, not a circular reduction. No equation was found whose derivation is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces algorithmic constructs (distribution cuts, pooled parametric cuts, AS-DRO as a model class) rather than new physical entities. No falsifiable empirical handle is attached to these constructs outside the algorithmic setting, so the invented-entities ledger is left empty. The theoretical claims rest mainly on standard measure-theoretic tools plus two structural domain assumptions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: closed sample space, upper semicontinuous kernels, lower semicontinuous moment functions, and controlled growth of f_m by moment functions.
    Used throughout to ensure finite expectations and to support weak compactness and duality arguments in Propositions 8, Corollary 9, and Theorem 4.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: existence of a nonnegative coercive moment function g_t0 that dominates the tails of f_m and all other moment functions.
    Critical for weak compactness of the ambiguity set, attainment of worst-case distributions, and finite termination of Oracle 2 over unbounded sample spaces.
  • domain assumption Conic Slater conditions and strict moment feasibility in Theorems 2, Proposition 13, and Proposition 15.
    Needed for strong duality in the dual reformulations; the primal BiCS algorithm itself avoids some of these conditions, but the comparisons rely on them.
  • standard math Standard measure-theoretic and conic-optimization tools: Prokhorov, Portmanteau, Markov, Richter-Rogosinski, strong duality for finite LP and conic programs.
    Imported as unproved background results in Proposition 8, Corollary 9, Theorem 2, and Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 4 assumes that generated supporting scenarios lie in a compact subset uniformly; Theorem 11 assumes equicontinuity and a uniform tail bound on reduced-cost functions.
    These conditions are imposed for finite termination and are not implied by Assumptions 1 and 2. They are stated clearly in the theorems but not verified in the experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Primal Perspective on Distributionally Robust Optimization: An Investigation on Modeling and Solution Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23NZUYQ4

@misc{pith2026260804123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Primal Perspective on Distributionally Robust Optimization: An Investigation on Modeling and Solution Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23NZUYQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04123}
}
read the original abstract

As a popular optimization scheme, distributionally robust optimization (DRO) protects decisions against ambiguity in probability distributions. For (single-stage) DRO, prevailing dual reformulations can become difficult when model or ambiguity-set structures are complex. We study DRO from a primal perspective, working directly with distributions in ambiguity sets on closed, potentially unbounded sample spaces. This perspective leads to an algorithmic framework, referred to as BiCS, that constructs and leverages distribution cuts to achieve strong performance. We show that BiCS is applicable to standard DRO, almost-sure DRO, DRO with various chance constraints, and DRO with ambiguity sets strengthened by local information. Numerical experiments with moment and Wasserstein ambiguity sets show that this framework demonstrates superior performance, including solving cases where the examined compact reformulations are unavailable or computationally difficult. The local-information study also makes changes in worst-case distributions directly visible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of different risk treatments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomy of optimization approaches for modeling uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Anatomy of BiCS framework. via standard optimality conditions, such as LP duality or KKT-based reformulations. Detailed formulations are provided in Appendix A.4. 3.4.2 Solving Subproblem While the master problem reduces cleanly to a single-level model, the subproblem (8) is where the main computational challenge lies. For a fixed decision x ∗ , the subproblem must identify a worst-case distribution over a space of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Outer objective values and worst-case distributions with and without local information in Exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Standard DRO algorithm performance comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AS-DRO algorithm performance comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DRCCP algorithm performance comparison. stantially more MP time. The MP can therefore become the computational bottleneck, especially under grouped satisfaction events, so the enhanced variant need not improve average total time. 7 Conclusion In this paper, we studied …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artzner, F

    P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J.-M. Eber, and D. Heath. Coherent measures of risk.Mathematical finance, 9(3):203–228, 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Ben-Tal, D

    A. Ben-Tal, D. Den Hertog, A. De Waegenaere, B. Melenberg, and G. Rennen. Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities.Management Science, 59(2):341– 357, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Ben-Tal and A

    A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski. Robust convex optimization.Mathematics of operations research, 23(4):769–805, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Ben-Tal and A

    A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski. Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs.Operations research letters, 25(1):1–13, 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Bertsimas, D

    D. Bertsimas, D. B. Brown, and C. Caramanis. Theory and applications of robust optimization. SIAM review, 53(3):464–501, 2011

    2011

  6. [6]

    Bertsimas, I

    D. Bertsimas, I. Dunning, and M. Lubin. Reformulation versus cutting-planes for robust optimization: A computational study.Computational Management Science, 13:195–217, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Bertsimas and I

    D. Bertsimas and I. Popescu. Optimal inequalities in probability theory: A convex optimization approach.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 15(3):780–804, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Bertsimas and M

    D. Bertsimas and M. Sim. The price of robustness.Operations research, 52(1):35–53, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Bienstock, M

    D. Bienstock, M. Chertkov, and S. Harnett. Chance-constrained optimal power flow: Risk- aware network control under uncertainty.Siam Review, 56(3):461–495, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    J. R. Birge and F. Louveaux.Introduction to stochastic programming. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Blanchet and K

    J. Blanchet and K. Murthy. Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport. Mathematics of Operations Research, 44(2):565–600, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    R. L. Burdett, P. Corry, B. Spratt, D. Cook, and P. Yarlagadda. A stochastic programming approach to perform hospital capacity assessments.Plos one, 18(11):e0287980, 2023. 59

    2023

  5. [13]

    G. C. Calafiore and L. E. Ghaoui. On distributionally robust chance-constrained linear pro- grams.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 130:1–22, 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    Charnes and W

    A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper. Chance-constrained programming.Management science, 6(1):73–79, 1959

    1959

  7. [15]

    Z. Chen, D. Kuhn, and W. Wiesemann. Data-driven chance constrained programs over wasser- stein balls.Operations Research, 72(1):410–424, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Z. Chen, M. Sim, and P. Xiong. Robust stochastic optimization made easy with rsome. Management Science, 66(8):3329–3339, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Delage and Y

    E. Delage and Y. Ye. Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems.Operations research, 58(3):595–612, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    A. Deo. On design of representative distributionally robust formulations for evaluation of tail risk measures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16230, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Erdo˘ gan and G

    E. Erdo˘ gan and G. Iyengar. Ambiguous chance constrained problems and robust optimization. Mathematical Programming, 107(1):37–61, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Fischetti and M

    M. Fischetti and M. Monaci. Cutting plane versus compact formulations for uncertain (integer) linear programs.Mathematical Programming Computation, 4:239–273, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Fissler, F

    T. Fissler, F. Liu, R. Wang, and L. Wei. Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures. Mathematical Finance, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    F¨ ollmer and A

    H. F¨ ollmer and A. Schied.Stochastic Finance: An Introduction in Discrete Time. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 4 edition, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Fournier and A

    N. Fournier and A. Guillin. On the rate of convergence in wasserstein distance of the empirical measure.Probability theory and related fields, 162(3):707–738, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Gabrel, C

    V. Gabrel, C. Murat, and A. Thiele. Recent advances in robust optimization: An overview. European journal of operational research, 235(3):471–483, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Gao and A

    R. Gao and A. Kleywegt. Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with wasserstein distance.Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(2):603–655, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gaspars-Wieloch

    H. Gaspars-Wieloch. Newsvendor problem under complete uncertainty: a case of innovative products.Central European journal of operations research, 25(3):561–585, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    B. L. Gorissen, ˙I. Yanıko˘ glu, and D. Den Hertog. A practical guide to robust optimization. Omega, 53:124–137, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Huang, T

    W. Huang, T. Qian, W. Tang, and J. Wu. A distributionally robust chance constrained opti- mization approach for security-constrained optimal power flow problems considering dependent uncertainty of wind power.Applied Energy, 383:125264, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    C. A. Irawan, P. S. Hofman, H. K. Chan, and A. Paulraj. A stochastic programming model for an energy planning problem: formulation, solution method and application.Annals of Operations Research, 311(2):695–730, 2022. 60

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ji and M

    R. Ji and M. A. Lejeune. Data-driven distributionally robust chance-constrained optimization with wasserstein metric.Journal of Global Optimization, 79(4):779–811, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Jiang and W

    N. Jiang and W. Xie. Also-x and also-x+: Better convex approximations for chance constrained programs.Operations Research, 70(6):3581–3600, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Jiang and W

    N. Jiang and W. Xie. Also-x#: Better convex approximations for distributionally robust chance constrained programs.Mathematical Programming, pages 1–64, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Jiang, J

    S. Jiang, J. Cheng, K. Pan, and Z.-J. M. Shen. Optimized dimensionality reduction for moment- based distributionally robust optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03996, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Y. Kang, R. Batta, and C. Kwon. Value-at-risk model for hazardous material transportation. Annals of operations research, 222(1):361–387, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    W. Karush. Minima of functions of several variables with inequalities as side constraints.M. Sc. Dissertation. Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago, 1939

    1939

  28. [36]

    K¨ u¸ c¨ ukyavuz and R

    S. K¨ u¸ c¨ ukyavuz and R. Jiang. Chance-constrained optimization under limited distributional information: A review of reformulations based on sampling and distributional robustness. EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, 10:100030, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    D. Kuhn, P. M. Esfahani, V. A. Nguyen, and S. Shafieezadeh-Abadeh. Wasserstein distri- butionally robust optimization: Theory and applications in machine learning. InOperations research & management science in the age of analytics, pages 130–166. Informs, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    D. Kuhn, S. Shafiee, and W. Wiesemann. Distributionally robust optimization.Acta Numerica, 34:579–804, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker. Nonlinear programming. InTraces and emergence of nonlinear programming, pages 247–258. Springer, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Liu and R

    F. Liu and R. Wang. A theory for measures of tail risk.Mathematics of Operations Research, 46(3):1109–1128, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Lu and B

    Z. Lu and B. Zeng. Two-stage distributionally robust optimization: Intuitive understanding and algorithm development from the primal perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20708, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Luo and S

    F. Luo and S. Mehrotra. Decomposition algorithm for distributionally robust optimization using wasserstein metric with an application to a class of regression models.European Journal of Operational Research, 278(1):20–35, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Mehrotra and D

    S. Mehrotra and D. Papp. A cutting surface algorithm for semi-infinite convex program- ming with an application to moment robust optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 24(4):1670–1697, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Mohajerin Esfahani and D

    P. Mohajerin Esfahani and D. Kuhn. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations.Mathematical Programming, 171(1):115–166, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Mutapcic and S

    A. Mutapcic and S. Boyd. Cutting-set methods for robust convex optimization with pessimizing oracles.Optimization Methods & Software, 24(3):381–406, 2009. 61

    2009

  38. [46]

    Nemirovski and A

    A. Nemirovski and A. Shapiro. Convex approximations of chance constrained programs.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 17(4):969–996, 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    Nesterov and A

    Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovskii.Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex programming. SIAM, 1994

    1994

  40. [48]

    S. R. Pathy and H. Rahimian. A decomposition algorithm for distributionally robust chance- constrained programs with polyhedral ambiguity set.Optimization Letters, 19:1375–1397, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Pr´ ekopa.Stochastic programming, volume 324

    A. Pr´ ekopa.Stochastic programming, volume 324. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Rahimian and S

    H. Rahimian and S. Mehrotra. Distributionally robust optimization: A review.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05659, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Rahimian and S

    H. Rahimian and S. Mehrotra. Frameworks and results in distributionally robust optimization. Open Journal of Mathematical Optimization, 3:1–85, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    C. Ren, Z. Wei, Y. Zhou, S. Chen, H. Han, G. Sun, H. Zang, and W. Ji. Distributionally robust cvar optimization for resilient distribution system planning with consideration for long-term and short-term uncertainties.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 251:110378, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    R. T. Rockafellar and S. Uryasev. Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of banking & finance, 26(7):1443–1471, 2002

    2002

  46. [54]

    R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, et al. Optimization of conditional value-at-risk.Journal of risk, 2:21–42, 2000

    2000

  47. [55]

    N. V. Sahinidis. Optimization under uncertainty: state-of-the-art and opportunities.Comput- ers & chemical engineering, 28(6-7):971–983, 2004

    2004

  48. [56]

    H. E. Scarf, K. Arrow, and S. Karlin.A min-max solution of an inventory problem. Rand Corporation Santa Monica, 1957

    1957

  49. [57]

    A. Shapiro. On duality theory of conic linear problems.Nonconvex Optimization and its Applications, 57:135–155, 2001

    2001

  50. [58]

    A. Shapiro. Distributionally robust stochastic programming.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 27(4):2258–2275, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Shapiro, D

    A. Shapiro, D. Dentcheva, and A. Ruszczynski.Lectures on stochastic programming: modeling and theory. SIAM, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    Shen and R

    H. Shen and R. Jiang. Convex chance-constrained programs with wasserstein ambiguity.Op- erations Research, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    A. L. Soyster. Convex programming with set-inclusive constraints and applications to inexact linear programming.Operations research, 21(5):1154–1157, 1973

    1973

  54. [62]

    J. Wang, R. Gao, and Y. Xie. Sinkhorn distributionally robust optimization.Operations Research, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    S. Wang, J. Li, and S. Mehrotra. A solution approach to distributionally robust joint-chance- constrained assignment problems.INFORMS Journal on Optimization, 4(2):125–147, 2022. 62

    2022

  56. [64]

    Y. Wen, Y. Guo, Z. Hu, and G. Hug. Multiple joint chance constraints approximation for uncertainty modeling in dispatch problems.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 40(1):662– 675, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Wiesemann, D

    W. Wiesemann, D. Kuhn, and M. Sim. Distributionally robust convex optimization.Operations research, 62(6):1358–1376, 2014

    2014

  58. [66]

    W. Xie. On distributionally robust chance constrained programs with wasserstein distance. Mathematical Programming, 186(1):115–155, 2021

    2021

  59. [67]

    Xie and S

    W. Xie and S. Ahmed. On deterministic reformulations of distributionally robust joint chance constrained optimization problems.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 28(2):1151–1182, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    H. Xu, Y. Liu, and H. Sun. Distributionally robust optimization with matrix moment con- straints: Lagrange duality and cutting plane methods.Mathematical programming, 169:489– 529, 2018

    2018

  61. [69]

    Yang and W

    Y. Yang and W. Wu. A distributionally robust optimization model for real-time power dispatch in distribution networks.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(4):3743–3752, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    M.-C. Yue, D. Kuhn, and W. Wiesemann. On linear optimization over wasserstein balls. Mathematical Programming, 195(1):1107–1122, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Zaghian, G

    M. Zaghian, G. J. Lim, and A. Khabazian. A chance-constrained programming framework to handle uncertainties in radiation therapy treatment planning.European Journal of Operational Research, 266(2):736–745, 2018

    2018

  64. [72]

    Zymler, D

    S. Zymler, D. Kuhn, and B. Rustem. Distributionally robust joint chance constraints with second-order moment information.Mathematical Programming, 137:167–198, 2013. 63

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.