pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16780 · v1 · pith:77GGG73Vnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · 🧮 math.OC

A Diagnostic Framework for Implementation Risk in Bilevel Decision Problems: The Ambiguity Premium and the Robustness--Efficiency Frontier

Jiguang Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 21:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords bilevel programmingambiguity premiumimplementation riskrobustness-efficiency frontiernear-optimal responsesquadratic growthStackelberg pricinggeneration planning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bilevel decisions carry hidden implementation risk when follower responses are near-optimal rather than exactly optimal.

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

The paper develops a diagnostic that measures how much a leader's chosen policy can vary in outcome if the follower settles for a near-optimal response instead of the precise best reply. It defines an ambiguity premium as the gap between the best and worst upper-level values attainable over the set of epsilon-near-optimal follower actions. A diameter bound and an O-square-root-epsilon rate under quadratic lower-level growth turn this premium into a computable risk metric. The framework also supplies a screening workflow that reports nominal performance alongside ambiguity exposure and a residual check, then visualizes the resulting robustness-efficiency frontier. Two case studies illustrate how policies that look strong under exact optimality can still be fragile once small follower deviations are allowed.

Core claim

For a leader decision x we define the ambiguity premium Delta_epsilon(x) as the difference between the pessimistic and optimistic upper-level values taken over the epsilon-optimal follower response set S_epsilon(x). This premium is bounded above by L_F(x) times the diameter of S_epsilon(x), and under quadratic growth of the lower-level objective it is at most order sqrt(epsilon). The bound makes the classical optimistic-pessimistic distinction operational as a practical diagnostic for how much implementation uncertainty a given policy actually carries.

What carries the argument

The ambiguity premium Delta_epsilon(x) := psi_epsilon^p(x) - psi_epsilon^o(x), which quantifies the spread of upper-level outcomes induced by non-unique or near-optimal follower responses.

If this is right

  • The diameter bound turns the size of the near-optimal set into a direct proxy for implementation exposure without solving the full pessimistic problem.
  • Under quadratic growth the premium vanishes at rate sqrt(epsilon), so the required verification precision can be chosen from a known scaling.
  • The screening workflow produces, for each candidate x, a triple of nominal value, ambiguity exposure, and first-order residual that can be plotted on a robustness-efficiency frontier.
  • Existing bilevel-GNEP reformulations can be reused inside the diagnostic according to their computational roles rather than being treated as competing models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same diagnostic could be applied to other hierarchical settings such as Stackelberg pricing or security games where exact follower optimality is unverifiable.
  • Approximating the near-optimal set S_epsilon(x) via sampling or surrogate models would extend the framework to high-dimensional or black-box lower levels.
  • The robustness-efficiency frontier is a Pareto surface whose curvature might be used to rank policies by their marginal risk reduction per unit loss in nominal value.

Load-bearing premise

The lower-level problem satisfies a quadratic growth condition that makes the upper-level value function locally Lipschitz, allowing the diameter bound and the square-root rate to hold.

What would settle it

Pick a concrete bilevel instance whose lower level obeys quadratic growth, compute Delta_epsilon(x) for a fixed x over a sequence of decreasing epsilon, and check whether the observed values scale linearly with sqrt(epsilon) or violate the diameter bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16780 by Jiguang Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Robustness–efficiency frontier for Case Study 1 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Robustness–efficiency frontier for Case Study 2 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Empirical check of the O( √ ϵ) rate (Corollary 3.5): ratio ∆ϵ/ √ ϵ for the balanced policy across a grid of ϵ. The ratio is relatively stable for small ϵ and rises for larger tolerances, consistent with a leading-order √ ϵ effect plus higher-order corrections. 2. the shape of the frontier is informative for screening, identifying policies that are nominally attractive but proportionally more exposed to nea… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hierarchical decision problems are often modeled as bilevel programs in which a leader commits to a policy and a follower responds optimally. When the follower's optimal response is nonunique, or when only near-optimal follower behavior can be verified, the same leader decision may induce a range of upper-level outcomes. This paper develops a diagnostic framework for quantifying that exposure. For a leader decision $x$, we evaluate the optimistic and pessimistic upper-level values over the $\epsilon$-optimal follower response set $S_\epsilon(x)$ and use their difference, \[ \Delta_\epsilon(x):=\psi_\epsilon^p(x)-\psi_\epsilon^o(x), \] as an ambiguity premium. The premium itself is classical in the optimistic--pessimistic bilevel distinction; the contribution here is to make it operational as an implementation-risk diagnostic. We establish a diameter bound $\Delta_\epsilon(x)\le L_F(x)\,\mathrm{diam}(S_\epsilon(x))$ and an $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ estimate under quadratic lower-level growth. We then organize existing bilevel--GNEP reformulations by their computational roles and propose a screening workflow that reports, for each candidate policy, nominal value, ambiguity exposure, and a first-order residual. Two stylized case studies -- a parallel-link Stackelberg pricing problem and a convex generation-planning model with diversification constraints -- show how the resulting robustness--efficiency frontier can identify policies that are nominally attractive but sensitive to near-optimal follower responses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a diagnostic framework for implementation risk in bilevel decision problems. For a leader decision x, it defines the ambiguity premium Δ_ε(x) as the difference between the pessimistic and optimistic upper-level values over the ε-optimal follower response set S_ε(x). It establishes a diameter bound Δ_ε(x) ≤ L_F(x) diam(S_ε(x)) and an O(√ε) estimate under quadratic lower-level growth. The framework is used to organize bilevel-GNEP reformulations and propose a screening workflow, illustrated with two case studies on Stackelberg pricing and generation planning to identify policies on the robustness-efficiency frontier.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, the paper offers a useful operational tool for assessing exposure to near-optimal follower responses in hierarchical optimization, which is relevant for practical decision-making in economics and operations research. The contribution lies in framing existing concepts as an implementation-risk diagnostic and demonstrating its application in case studies rather than introducing fundamentally new mathematical results. The explicit bounds and rates provide a concrete way to quantify ambiguity.

major comments (1)
  1. §3.2, the O(√ε) estimate: the quadratic growth condition is invoked to obtain diam(S_ε(x)) = O(√ε), but the manuscript does not specify whether the growth constant is uniform over the relevant x-domain or only local; this affects whether the screening workflow can be applied without additional verification steps in the case studies.
minor comments (2)
  1. The screening workflow in §4 reports a 'first-order residual'; this quantity should be defined explicitly with its formula or computation method rather than left as a reference to prior reformulations.
  2. In the parallel-link pricing case study, the robustness-efficiency frontier plots would benefit from explicit labeling of the ε values used to generate each point on the curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation for minor revision. The comment on the quadratic growth condition is well taken, and we address it directly below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2, the O(√ε) estimate: the quadratic growth condition is invoked to obtain diam(S_ε(x)) = O(√ε), but the manuscript does not specify whether the growth constant is uniform over the relevant x-domain or only local; this affects whether the screening workflow can be applied without additional verification steps in the case studies.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript should clarify the nature of the quadratic growth assumption. The O(√ε) estimate in §3.2 is derived under a local quadratic growth condition around the lower-level optimum for each fixed leader decision x; the modulus is permitted to depend on x and is not assumed uniform over the entire domain. This is the standard local setting in parametric optimization and suffices for the diameter bound at each individual x. For the screening workflow, the referee is correct that this locality implies a verification step when applying the rate across multiple candidate policies. In the revised manuscript we will (i) explicitly state the locality of the growth condition in the theorem and (ii) add a short paragraph in each case-study section confirming that the quadratic growth was verified numerically for the policies retained on the robustness-efficiency frontier. These clarifications will be incorporated without changing the stated results or the overall workflow. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines the ambiguity premium Δ_ε(x) explicitly as the difference between pessimistic and optimistic upper-level values over the ε-optimal follower set S_ε(x). The diameter bound Δ_ε(x) ≤ L_F(x) diam(S_ε(x)) follows directly from the definition of the Lipschitz constant L_F(x) of the upper-level objective with respect to the follower variable y, and the O(√ε) estimate is a standard consequence of the quadratic growth assumption on the lower-level problem. These are conventional Lipschitz and growth arguments applied to the defined quantities, with no self-referential equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The paper's contribution is framing these existing relations as an implementation-risk diagnostic and organizing reformulations into a screening workflow, rather than deriving results that reduce to their own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on standard continuity and growth assumptions typical of bilevel optimization; no free parameters are introduced and no new entities are postulated beyond the defined diagnostic quantity.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The upper-level value function is locally Lipschitz continuous with respect to the lower-level decision variable.
    Invoked to obtain the diameter bound Δ_ε(x) ≤ L_F(x) diam(S_ε(x)).
  • domain assumption The lower-level objective satisfies quadratic growth away from its optimal set.
    Used to derive the O(√ε) estimate for the ambiguity premium.
invented entities (1)
  • ambiguity premium Δ_ε(x) no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify implementation risk arising from non-unique or near-optimal follower responses
    Defined in the paper as the difference between pessimistic and optimistic upper-level values over the ε-optimal follower set; no independent evidence outside the definition is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5804 in / 1553 out tokens · 37892 ms · 2026-05-19T21:19:17.810027+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    An overview of bilevel optimization

    Benoît Colson, Patrice Marcotte, and Gilles Savard. An overview of bilevel optimization. Annals of operations research, 153(1):235–256, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Bidi- rectional endothelial feedback drives turing-vascular patterning and drug-resistance niches: a hybrid pde-agent-based study.Bioengineering, 12(10):1097, 2025

    Zonghao Liu, Louis Shuo Wang, Jiguang Yu, Jilin Zhang, Erica Martel, and Shijia Li. Bidi- rectional endothelial feedback drives turing-vascular patterning and drug-resistance niches: a hybrid pde-agent-based study.Bioengineering, 12(10):1097, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Algebraic–spectral thresholds and discrete–continuous stability transfer in leslie–gower systems.Electronic Research Archive, 34(1):251–290, 2026

    Louis Shuo Wang and Jiguang Yu. Algebraic–spectral thresholds and discrete–continuous stability transfer in leslie–gower systems.Electronic Research Archive, 34(1):251–290, 2026

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Analysis and mean-field limit of a hybrid pde-abm modeling angiogenesis-regulated resistance evolution.Mathematics, 13(17):2898, 2025

    Louis Shuo Wang, Jiguang Yu, Shijia Li, and Zonghao Liu. Analysis and mean-field limit of a hybrid pde-abm modeling angiogenesis-regulated resistance evolution.Mathematics, 13(17):2898, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Springer, 2002

    Stephan Dempe.Foundations of bilevel programming. Springer, 2002. 21

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Bilevel optimization: Advances and next challenges, 2020

    Stephan Dempe and Alain Zemkohoo. Bilevel optimization: Advances and next challenges, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A survey on mixed- integer programming techniques in bilevel optimization.EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, 9:100007, 2021

    Thomas Kleinert, Martine Labbé, Ivana Ljubić, and Martin Schmidt. A survey on mixed- integer programming techniques in bilevel optimization.EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, 9:100007, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Cambridge University Press, 1996

    Zhi-Quan Luo, Jong-Shi Pang, and Daniel Ralph.Mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints. Cambridge University Press, 1996

    work page 1996

  9. [9]

    A bilevel model of taxation and its application to optimal highway pricing.Management science, 44(12-part-1):1608–1622, 1998

    Martine Labbé, Patrice Marcotte, and Gilles Savard. A bilevel model of taxation and its application to optimal highway pricing.Management science, 44(12-part-1):1608–1622, 1998

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    A bilevel model for toll optimization on a multicommodity transportation network.Transportation science, 35(4):345– 358, 2001

    Luce Brotcorne, Martine Labbé, Patrice Marcotte, and Gilles Savard. A bilevel model for toll optimization on a multicommodity transportation network.Transportation science, 35(4):345– 358, 2001

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    The bilevel programming problem: reformulations, constraint qualifications and optimality conditions.Mathematical Programming, 138(1):447– 473, 2013

    Stephan Dempe and Alain B Zemkoho. The bilevel programming problem: reformulations, constraint qualifications and optimality conditions.Mathematical Programming, 138(1):447– 473, 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    A numerical study of the logit network pricing problem.Transportation Science, 49(3):706–719, 2015

    François Gilbert, Patrice Marcotte, and Gilles Savard. A numerical study of the logit network pricing problem.Transportation Science, 49(3):706–719, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Jonathan F Bard.Practical bilevel optimization: algorithms and applications, volume 30. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Estimation of distribution algorithm for a class of nonlinear bilevel programming problems.Information Sciences, 256:184–196, 2014

    Zhongping Wan, Lijun Mao, and Guangmin Wang. Estimation of distribution algorithm for a class of nonlinear bilevel programming problems.Information Sciences, 256:184–196, 2014

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Complementarity modeling in energy markets

    Steven A Gabriel, Antonio J Conejo, J David Fuller, Benjamin F Hobbs, and Carlos Ruiz. Complementarity modeling in energy markets. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Analysis framework for stochastic predator–prey model with demographic noise.Results in Applied Mathematics, 27:100621, 2025

    Louis Shuo Wang and Jiguang Yu. Analysis framework for stochastic predator–prey model with demographic noise.Results in Applied Mathematics, 27:100621, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Global well-posedness and stability ofnonlocaldamage-structuredlineagemodelwithfeedbackanddedifferentiation.Mathematics, 13(22):3583, 2025

    Ye Liang, Louis Shuo Wang, Jiguang Yu, and Zonghao Liu. Global well-posedness and stability ofnonlocaldamage-structuredlineagemodelwithfeedbackanddedifferentiation.Mathematics, 13(22):3583, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Applications of bilevel optimiza- tion in energy and electricity markets

    Sonja Wogrin, Salvador Pineda, and Diego A Tejada-Arango. Applications of bilevel optimiza- tion in energy and electricity markets. InBilevel optimization: advances and next challenges, pages 139–168. Springer, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms

    J Cole Smith and Yongjia Song. A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3):797–811, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Introduction to Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints (MPECs) and Bilevel Optimization

    Louis Shuo Wang. Introduction to mathematical programming with equilibrium constraints (mpecs) and bilevel optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00386, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Bilevel knap- sack with interdiction constraints.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 28(2):319–333, 2016

    Alberto Caprara, Margarida Carvalho, Andrea Lodi, and Gerhard J Woeginger. Bilevel knap- sack with interdiction constraints.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 28(2):319–333, 2016. 22

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Shortest-path network interdiction.Networks: An Interna- tional Journal, 40(2):97–111, 2002

    Eitan Israeli and R Kevin Wood. Shortest-path network interdiction.Networks: An Interna- tional Journal, 40(2):97–111, 2002

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning

    Luca Franceschi, Paolo Frasconi, Saverio Salzo, Riccardo Grazzi, and Massimiliano Pontil. Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1568–1577. PMLR, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    A damage-structured pde model of stem cell hierarchies: The dual role of dedifferentiation in tissue homeostasis and aging.Plos one, 21(2):e0335163, 2026

    Louis Shuo Wang, Jiguang Yu, and Zonghao Liu. A damage-structured pde model of stem cell hierarchies: The dual role of dedifferentiation in tissue homeostasis and aging.Plos one, 21(2):e0335163, 2026

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    Risheng Liu, Jiaxin Gao, Jin Zhang, Deyu Meng, and Zhouchen Lin. Investigating bi-level optimization for learning and vision from a unified perspective: A survey and beyond.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(12):10045–10067, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Weak via strong stackelberg problem: new results

    Pierre Loridan and Jacqueline Morgan. Weak via strong stackelberg problem: new results. Journal of global Optimization, 8(3):263–287, 1996

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    Jiguang Yu, Louis Shuo Wang, Zonghao Liu, and Jingfeng Liu. Pattern suppression and recovery under one-way versus two-way chemotactic coupling in hybrid partial differential equation–ordinary differential equation models.Transport Phenomena, (0), 2026

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Pes- simistic bilevel optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 23(1):353–380, 2013

    Wolfram Wiesemann, Angelos Tsoukalas, Polyxeni-Margarita Kleniati, and Berç Rustem. Pes- simistic bilevel optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 23(1):353–380, 2013

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Multi-strategy hybrid improved intelligent algorithm for solving uav-mtsp.Information Technology and Control, 54(2):413–438, 2025

    Zixin Wang, Danqing Wang, and Jiguang Yu. Multi-strategy hybrid improved intelligent algorithm for solving uav-mtsp.Information Technology and Control, 54(2):413–438, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    A survey on bilevel optimization under uncertainty.European Journal of Operational Research, 311(2):401–426, 2023

    Yasmine Beck, Ivana Ljubić, and Martin Schmidt. A survey on bilevel optimization under uncertainty.European Journal of Operational Research, 311(2):401–426, 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Rolling prediction model of closing price based on eemd data noise reduction and hgs-delm

    Yuansheng Gao, Lei Li, and Jiguang Yu. Rolling prediction model of closing price based on eemd data noise reduction and hgs-delm. In2022 International Conference on Data Analytics, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICDACAI), pages 255–260. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Near-optimal robust bilevel opti- mization

    Mathieu Besançon, Miguel F Anjos, and Luce Brotcorne. Near-optimal robust bilevel opti- mization. 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Lecture Note for Bounded Controls in Continuous-Time and Control of Several Variables

    Louis Shuo Wang. Lecture note for bounded controls in continuous-time and control of several variables.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05882, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    First-Order Optimality Conditions for Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints

    Louis Shuo Wang. First-order optimality conditions for mathematical programming with equi- librium constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00388, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Introduction to Exact Penalization for Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints

    Louis Shuo Wang. Introduction to exact penalization for mathematical programming with equilibrium constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00387, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Generalized nash equilibrium problems.Annals of Operations Research, 175(1):177–211, 2010

    Francisco Facchinei and Christian Kanzow. Generalized nash equilibrium problems.Annals of Operations Research, 175(1):177–211, 2010

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    A bridge between bilevel programs and nash games.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 174(2):613–635, 2017

    Lorenzo Lampariello and Simone Sagratella. A bridge between bilevel programs and nash games.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 174(2):613–635, 2017. 23

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Numerically tractable optimistic bilevel problems

    Lorenzo Lampariello and Simone Sagratella. Numerically tractable optimistic bilevel problems. Computational Optimization and Applications, 76(2):277–303, 2020

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    The standard pessimistic bilevel problem.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 29(2):1634–1656, 2019

    Lorenzo Lampariello, Simone Sagratella, and Oliver Stein. The standard pessimistic bilevel problem.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 29(2):1634–1656, 2019

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Note on non-cooperative convex games

    Hukukane Nikaidô and Kazuo Isoda. Note on non-cooperative convex games. 1955

    work page 1955

  41. [41]

    Equivalent differentiable optimization problems and descent methods for asymmetric variational inequality problems.Mathematical programming, 53(1):99–110, 1992

    Masao Fukushima. Equivalent differentiable optimization problems and descent methods for asymmetric variational inequality problems.Mathematical programming, 53(1):99–110, 1992

    work page 1992

  42. [42]

    A special newton-type optimization method.Optimization, 24(3-4):269–284, 1992

    Andreas Fischer. A special newton-type optimization method.Optimization, 24(3-4):269–284, 1992

    work page 1992

  43. [43]

    Springer, 2003

    Francisco Facchinei and Jong-Shi Pang.Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and com- plementarity problems. Springer, 2003

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    The stochastic bilevel continuous knapsack problem with uncertain follower’s objective.Journal of optimization theory and applications, 194(2):521–542, 2022

    Christoph Buchheim, Dorothee Henke, and Jannik Irmai. The stochastic bilevel continuous knapsack problem with uncertain follower’s objective.Journal of optimization theory and applications, 194(2):521–542, 2022

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Risk-averse models in bilevel stochastic linear programming.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(1):377–406, 2020

    Johanna Burtscheidt, Matthias Claus, and Stephan Dempe. Risk-averse models in bilevel stochastic linear programming.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(1):377–406, 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    A generalization of the branch-and-sandwich algo- rithm: from continuous to mixed-integer nonlinear bilevel problems.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 72:373–386, 2015

    Polyxeni-M Kleniati and Claire S Adjiman. A generalization of the branch-and-sandwich algo- rithm: from continuous to mixed-integer nonlinear bilevel problems.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 72:373–386, 2015

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Recent advances in nonconvex semi- infinite programming: Applications and algorithms.EURO Journal on Computational Opti- mization, 9:100006, 2021

    Hatim Djelassi, Alexander Mitsos, and Oliver Stein. Recent advances in nonconvex semi- infinite programming: Applications and algorithms.EURO Journal on Computational Opti- mization, 9:100006, 2021

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Pessimistic bilevel optimization: a survey

    June Liu, Yuxin Fan, Zhong Chen, and Yue Zheng. Pessimistic bilevel optimization: a survey. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 11(1):725–736, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Global solution of bilevel pro- grams with a nonconvex inner program.Journal of Global Optimization, 42(4):475–513, 2008

    Alexander Mitsos, Panayiotis Lemonidis, and Paul I Barton. Global solution of bilevel pro- grams with a nonconvex inner program.Journal of Global Optimization, 42(4):475–513, 2008

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    Angelos Tsoukalas, Berç Rustem, and Efstratios N Pistikopoulos. A global optimization algo- rithm for generalized semi-infinite, continuous minimax with coupled constraints and bi-level problems.Journal of Global Optimization, 44(2):235–250, 2009

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    Generalized nash equilibrium problems.4or, 5(3):173–210, 2007

    Francisco Facchinei and Christian Kanzow. Generalized nash equilibrium problems.4or, 5(3):173–210, 2007

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    On the solution of the kkt conditions of generalized nash equilibrium problems.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 21(3):1082–1108, 2011

    Axel Dreves, Francisco Facchinei, Christian Kanzow, and Simone Sagratella. On the solution of the kkt conditions of generalized nash equilibrium problems.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 21(3):1082–1108, 2011

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    On the variational equilibrium as a refinement of the generalized nash equilibrium.Automatica, 48(1):45–55, 2012

    Ankur A Kulkarni and Uday V Shanbhag. On the variational equilibrium as a refinement of the generalized nash equilibrium.Automatica, 48(1):45–55, 2012

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    J Frédéric Bonnans and Alexander Shapiro.Perturbation analysis of optimization problems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 24

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    Error bounds, quadratic growth, and linear con- vergence of proximal methods.Mathematics of operations research, 43(3):919–948, 2018

    Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy and Adrian S Lewis. Error bounds, quadratic growth, and linear con- vergence of proximal methods.Mathematics of operations research, 43(3):919–948, 2018

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Error bounds: necessary and sufficient conditions.Set-Valued and Variational Analysis, 18(2):121–149, 2010

    Marian J Fabian, René Henrion, Alexander Y Kruger, and Jiří V Outrata. Error bounds: necessary and sufficient conditions.Set-Valued and Variational Analysis, 18(2):121–149, 2010

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Extension of hoffman’s error bound to polynomial systems

    Xiao-Dong Luo and Zhi-Quan Luo. Extension of hoffman’s error bound to polynomial systems. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 4(2):383–392, 1994

    work page 1994

  58. [58]

    Sensitivity analysis of nonlinear programs and differentiability properties of metric projections.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 26(3):628–645, 1988

    Alexander Shapiro. Sensitivity analysis of nonlinear programs and differentiability properties of metric projections.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 26(3):628–645, 1988

    work page 1988

  59. [59]

    Introductiontosensitivityandstabilityanalysisinnonlinearprogramming

    AnthonyVFiacco. Introductiontosensitivityandstabilityanalysisinnonlinearprogramming. 1983

    work page 1983

  60. [60]

    Generalized nash games and quasi-variational inequalities.European journal of Operational research, 54(1):81–94, 1991

    Patrick T Harker. Generalized nash games and quasi-variational inequalities.European journal of Operational research, 54(1):81–94, 1991

    work page 1991

  61. [61]

    Quasi-variational inequalities, generalized nash equilib- ria, and multi-leader-follower games.Computational Management Science, 2(1):21–56, 2005

    Jong-Shi Pang and Masao Fukushima. Quasi-variational inequalities, generalized nash equilib- ria, and multi-leader-follower games.Computational Management Science, 2(1):21–56, 2005

    work page 2005

  62. [62]

    Optimization reformulations of the generalized nash equilibrium problem using nikaido-isoda-type functions.Computational Optimization and Applications, 43(3):353–377, 2009

    Anna Von Heusinger and Christian Kanzow. Optimization reformulations of the generalized nash equilibrium problem using nikaido-isoda-type functions.Computational Optimization and Applications, 43(3):353–377, 2009

    work page 2009

  63. [63]

    SIAM, 2009

    Andrew R Conn, Katya Scheinberg, and Luis N Vicente.Introduction to derivative-free opti- mization. SIAM, 2009

    work page 2009

  64. [64]

    Springer, 2017

    CharlesAudetandWarrenHare.Derivative-free and blackbox optimization, volume1. Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    Springer, 2005

    Matthias Ehrgott.Multicriteria optimization. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  66. [66]

    Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 1999

    Kaisa Miettinen.Nonlinear multiobjective optimization, volume 12. Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 1999

    work page 1999

  67. [67]

    A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code

    Michael D McKay, Richard J Beckman, and William J Conover. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 42(1):55–61, 2000

    work page 2000

  68. [68]

    A tutorial on latin hypercube design of experiments.Quality and reliability engineering international, 32(5):1975–1985, 2016

    Felipe AC Viana. A tutorial on latin hypercube design of experiments.Quality and reliability engineering international, 32(5):1975–1985, 2016

    work page 1975

  69. [69]

    Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles.Mathematical programming, 91(2):201–213, 2002

    Elizabeth D Dolan and Jorge J Moré. Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles.Mathematical programming, 91(2):201–213, 2002

    work page 2002

  70. [70]

    Cutest: a constrained and uncon- strained testing environment with safe threads for mathematical optimization.Computational optimization and applications, 60(3):545–557, 2015

    Nicholas IM Gould, Dominique Orban, and Philippe L Toint. Cutest: a constrained and uncon- strained testing environment with safe threads for mathematical optimization.Computational optimization and applications, 60(3):545–557, 2015

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    Short and long-term reliability assessment of wind farms

    S Kahrobaee and S Asgarpoor. Short and long-term reliability assessment of wind farms. In North American Power Symposium 2010, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2010. 25

    work page 2010

  72. [72]

    Comparing the costs of intermittent and dispatchable electricity generating technologies.American Economic Review, 101(3):238–241, 2011

    Paul L Joskow. Comparing the costs of intermittent and dispatchable electricity generating technologies.American Economic Review, 101(3):238–241, 2011

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Market design for resource adequacy: A relia- bility insurance overlay on energy-only electricity markets.Utilities Policy, 60:100935, 2019

    Farhad Billimoria and Rahmatallah Poudineh. Market design for resource adequacy: A relia- bility insurance overlay on energy-only electricity markets.Utilities Policy, 60:100935, 2019

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on us co2 emissions.Nature Climate Change, 6(5):526–531, 2016

    Alexander E MacDonald, Christopher TM Clack, Anneliese Alexander, Adam Dunbar, James Wilczak, and Yuanfu Xie. Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on us co2 emissions.Nature Climate Change, 6(5):526–531, 2016

    work page 2016

  75. [75]

    The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the united states.Joule, 5(6):1331–1352, 2021

    Paul Denholm, Douglas J Arent, Samuel F Baldwin, Daniel E Bilello, Gregory L Brinkman, Jaquelin M Cochran, Wesley J Cole, Bethany Frew, Vahan Gevorgian, Jenny Heeter, et al. The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the united states.Joule, 5(6):1331–1352, 2021

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    Springer, 2010

    Antonio J Conejo, Miguel Carrión, Juan M Morales, et al.Decision making under uncertainty in electricity markets, volume 1. Springer, 2010

    work page 2010

  77. [77]

    Robust optimization of large-scale systems.Operations research, 43(2):264–281, 1995

    John M Mulvey, Robert J Vanderbei, and Stavros A Zenios. Robust optimization of large-scale systems.Operations research, 43(2):264–281, 1995

    work page 1995

  78. [78]

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

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

    work page 2010

  79. [79]

    The eu regulation on cross-border trade of electricity: A two-stage equilibrium model.European Journal of Operational Research, 181(3):1396–1412, 2007

    Olivier Daxhelet and Yves Smeers. The eu regulation on cross-border trade of electricity: A two-stage equilibrium model.European Journal of Operational Research, 181(3):1396–1412, 2007

    work page 2007

  80. [80]

    Nash-cournot equilibria in electric power markets with piecewise linear demand functions and joint constraints.Operations Research, 55(1):113–127, 2007

    Benjamin F Hobbs and Jong-Shi Pang. Nash-cournot equilibria in electric power markets with piecewise linear demand functions and joint constraints.Operations Research, 55(1):113–127, 2007

    work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.