Distributionally Robust Regret Minimization

Eilyan Bitar

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Distributionally Robust Regret Minimization

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Worst-case expected regret over a Wasserstein ambiguity ball equals nominal regret plus a term that pulls decisions toward the center of the feasible set.

desk verdict Clean, correct main theorem with a genuinely nice regularization story; the CVaR extension is plausible but under-proved and needs a real proof before the paper is fully self-contained. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15406 v1 pith:DEL6DLJY submitted 2024-12-19 math.OC

Eilyan Bitar This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 90C1590C4749Q22

keywords distributionallyrobustoptimizationregretminimizationWassersteinambiguitysetworst-caseexpectedconditionalvalue-at-riskregularizationoptimaltransportdualityconvexreformulation

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

This paper studies decisions made before the coefficients of a linear objective are known, when the coefficient distribution is only known to lie in a type-1 Wasserstein ball around a nominal distribution. It establishes that the worst-case expected regret of any decision equals the expected regret under the nominal distribution plus $r$ times the dual-norm distance from that decision to the farthest point in the feasible set. That regularization term makes optimal decisions migrate toward the center of the feasible set as the ambiguity radius $r$ grows. The same structure appears for worst-case conditional value-at-risk of regret, with the radius rescaled by $1/(1-\alpha)$. Under structural conditions, these problems reduce to finite-dimensional convex programs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is strong duality for worst-case expectation over a type-1 Wasserstein ball, applied to the regret function $R(x,w)=w^\top x - \inf_{y\in X} w^\top y$. Because regret is convex in $w$, the inner supremum over distributions dualizes into a supremum over $z$ of $R(x,z)+\lambda(r-\|z-w\|)$. Exchanging the two suprema and using the fact that the conjugate of $\lambda\|\cdot\|$ is the indicator of the dual-norm ball $\{\xi: \|\xi\|_*\le \lambda\}$ turns the worst case into $\mathbb{E}_{P_0}[R(x,w)] + r\sup_{v\in X}\|x-v\|_*$. The term $\sup_{v\in X}\|x-v\|_*$ is the smallest dual-norm radius of a ball centered at $x$ that covers the feasible set, so it draws optimal decisions toward the center of $X$.

What would settle it

A direct calculation would settle the identity: take $X=\{0,1\}$ in $\mathbb{R}$, $P_0=0.5\delta_0+0.5\delta_1$, the absolute value as the norm, and $r=1$, then compute both sides of equation (7); if they disagree, Theorem 2 fails. More generally, the claim is falsified by exhibiting any compact $X$ and finite-first-moment $P_0$ for which the primal worst-case expectation, computed by solving the optimal transport problem directly, exceeds the right-hand side of (7).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 2: for a nonempty compact feasible set $X$ and a nominal distribution $P_0$ with finite first moment, $$\sup_{P: W_1(P,P_0)\le r} \mathbb{E}_P[R(x,w)] = \mathbb{E}_{P_0}[R(x,w)] + r\sup_{v\in X}\|x-v\|_*.$$ Consequently, the distributionally robust regret minimization problem is exactly equivalent to $$\inf_{x\in X}\left\{\mathbb{E}_{P_0}[w^\top x] + r\sup_{v\in X}\|x-v\|_*\right\},$$ up to the constant $\mathbb{E}_{P_0}[\inf_{y\in X} w^\top y]$ that does not depend on $x$. The paper also proves the analogue for conditional value-at-risk of regret: the worst-case CVaR equals the nominal CVaR plus $(r/(1-\alpha))\sup_{v\in X}\|x-v\|_*$. These are exact equivalences, not approximations.

Load-bearing premise

The identity requires the feasible set $X$ to be nonempty and compact and the nominal distribution $P_0$ to have a finite first moment, so that the regularization term $\sup_{v\in X}\|x-v\|_*$ is finite and the regret function is integrable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The distributionally robust regret problem is exactly the regularized expected-cost problem, so any method for the latter solves the former.
As $r\to 0$ the optimal decision tends to the nominal expected-cost minimizer, and as $r\to\infty$ it tends to the robust regret minimizer against the norm-bounded uncertainty set $\{w: \|w\|\le 1\}$.
When $X$ is the convex hull of finitely many points $v_1,\ldots,v_m$, the problem becomes the finite convex program with constraints $\|x-v_i\|_*\le\lambda$.
When the dual norm is the $\infty$-norm, the regularizer splits into support-function constraints, giving a tractable formulation for any compact $X$.
The worst-case CVaR of regret inherits the same center-seeking regularization with radius $r/(1-\alpha)$, so a higher confidence level simply rescales the ambiguity radius.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the center-seeking penalty gives a concrete behavioral reading of distributional robustness: a larger ambiguity radius encodes less trust in the nominal distribution, and the decision maker responds by choosing a decision that is well positioned relative to the whole feasible region rather than merely one with low nominal cost.
Inference: the Lipschitz-modulus interpretation of the regularizer suggests the same decomposition should hold for any loss function whose worst case over a Wasserstein ball is governed by its Lipschitz constant on the feasible set; regret's special feature is that the relevant distance is measured from the decision to competing feasible points.
Inference: a testable extension is to replace the ex post benchmark $\inf_{y\in X} w^\top y$ with a finite menu of precomputed comparator decisions; the same duality should yield a regularizer equal to the dual-norm distance to that menu, which would connect this framework to online learning and decision-focused calibration.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: Theorem 2 is the real contribution, and it holds up. The identity sup_{P in P} E_P[R(x,w)] = E_{P0}[R(x,w)] + r sup_{v in X} ||x-v||_* is clean, correctly derived, and the resulting center-drawing regularization is a nice and genuinely interpretable effect. The paper is also honest about what is new: the closed form and the regularizer characterization are not in the cited literature, even though they are close corollaries of known Wasserstein duality for Lipschitz functions. The reformulations in Section 2.2 for convex hulls and for the infinity norm are useful and correctly stated, and the comparison with standard DRO regularization in Section 2.3 is fair and illuminating.

The proof of Theorem 2 is essentially correct. The reader's note about a missing change-of-variable when applying the conjugate of lambda||.|| is accurate but minor; the final expression is valid and the rest of the argument is sound. The integrability and finiteness checks are done properly.

The soft spot is Theorem 3. The proof is genuinely only sketched: the crucial step—bounding sup_P E_P[max{R(x,w)-tau,0}]—is dismissed with "a line of reasoning similar to that used in the proof of Theorem 2." That is not the same reasoning. The function h_tau(w)=max{R(x,w)-tau,0} is not of the form sup_{y in X} w^T(x-y); it is the positive part of such a function. Using the W1 dual on h_tau requires knowing its Lipschitz modulus (which is indeed sup_v ||x-v||_*, so the final formula is plausible) and justifying the minimax exchange in (24)-(25), including weak continuity in P and coercivity in tau. Neither step is shown. The citations [10] and [28] are relevant, but the verification is not supplied. This is a genuine self-containedness gap, not evidence that the result is wrong. It should be fixed before the paper is treated as fully proven.

There is also an omitted proof in Section 2.3 for the DRO identity (20), but that is a standard corollary of Theorem 1 and the omission is explicitly stated, so it is a minor issue.

Overall: this is a coherent, useful paper for people working in distributionally robust optimization and regret minimization. The core result is solid and worth knowing. The CVaR extension needs a complete proof, but the paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review.

Recommendation: engage with it, ask for the Theorem 3 proof to be completed, and then it can be a solid contribution.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies distributionally robust ex post regret minimization for uncertain linear objectives when the distribution of the coefficient vector is known only to lie in a type-1 Wasserstein ball of radius r around a nominal distribution P0. The main result (Theorem 2) states that, for a nonempty compact feasible set X, the worst-case expected regret of a decision x equals the expected regret under P0 plus r times sup_{v∈X} ||x-v||_*, the radius of the smallest dual-norm ball centered at x that contains X. The paper then shows that the resulting problem is equivalent to minimizing E_P0[w^T x] + r sup_{v∈X} ||x-v||_* over X, gives tractable convex reformulations for polytopic X and for the case where the dual norm is the ∞-norm, and contrasts the resulting center-seeking regularization with the origin-seeking regularization of standard distributionally robust cost minimization. It also extends the result to worst-case CVaR of regret (Theorem 3), where the same regularizer appears scaled by 1/(1-α), and discusses the computational complexity of the regularizer.

Significance. Assuming the results are correct, Theorem 2 is an elegant and practically useful closed-form characterization: it reduces a distributionally robust regret problem to a nominal problem plus a very interpretable geometric regularizer. The contrast with DRO, where regularization drives solutions toward the origin rather than toward the center of X, is a genuine conceptual insight. The paper is honest about the NP-hardness of the regularizer in general and identifies genuinely tractable cases. The derivation of Theorem 2 is largely complete and correct, and it applies the external strong-duality theorem [15] in a clean way; there are no fitted parameters or ad hoc assumptions beyond compactness of X and a finite first moment for P0. The main weakness is that Theorem 3's proof is a sketch: the key Lipschitz-conjugate computation and the minimax hypotheses are not supplied. These appear to be fixable, and the statement itself seems true, so the paper merits revision rather than rejection.

major comments (2)

[Section 3 (proof of Theorem 3)] The identity asserted after Eq. (25), namely sup_{P∈P} E_P[max{R(x,w)-τ,0}] = E_P0[max{R(x,w)-τ,0}] + r sup_{v∈X}||x-v||_*, is stated without proof. The function h_τ(w)=max{R(x,w)-τ,0} is not of the form sup_{y∈X} w^T(x-y), so the conjugate computation in Eqs. (10)-(13) does not apply to it directly. To establish the identity one must show that h_τ has Lipschitz constant L=sup_{v∈X}||x-v||_* and that, for λ≥L, the inner supremum sup_z {h_τ(z)-λ||z-w||} equals h_τ(w), while for λ<L it is +∞. The latter requires exhibiting a direction d along which h_τ(td) grows linearly with slope L, using the support function of X-x. These steps are not supplied, and they are load-bearing for the CVaR reformulation (26).
[Section 3 (proof of Theorem 3)] The minimax exchange in Eqs. (24)-(25) is justified solely by a citation to [10, Theorem 4.5], but the hypotheses of that theorem are not verified in the text. The paper notes that P is convex and weakly compact [28, Theorem 1], but it does not prove that φ(P,τ)=τ+1/(1-α)E_P[max{R-τ,0}] is weakly continuous in P on P, which requires uniform integrability of the measures in the Wasserstein ball because the integrand is unbounded, nor does it show that φ is coercive in τ so that the unbounded τ domain is compatible with the minimax theorem. These conditions are plausible and likely satisfied, but they belong in the proof of Eq. (23) and should be stated explicitly.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.1 (proof of Theorem 2)] The transition from Eq. (10) to Eq. (11) is missing the change of variable u=z-w in the supremum over z before applying the conjugate of λ||·||; the displayed formula is correct, but writing the substitution explicitly would remove ambiguity.
[Section 1] On page 1, the sentence 'x ∈ Rn is constrained to lie within a feasible set X ⊆ Rn and and the vector' contains a duplicated 'and'.
[Section 2.1 (Remark 1)] The phrase 'Lipschtiz modulus' should read 'Lipschitz modulus'.
[Section 3 (proof of Theorem 3)] The sentence 'Next, we next invoke a version of the minimax theorem' contains a duplicated 'next'.
[Section 2.3] The proof of Eq. (20) is omitted with a pointer to Theorem 2; a one-sentence proof using the fact that w ↦ w^T x is ||x||_*-Lipschitz would make the section self-contained.
[Definition 1] The integral in Definition 1 is written over R^{Nx} × R^{Nx}; this should be R^n × R^n.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity — Theorem 2 is derived from the external strong-duality result [15] via a standard conjugate computation, and the CVaR extension (Theorem 3) invokes external minimax [10] and weak-compactness [28] results; the sole self-citation [1] is contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to external, independently stated results. Theorem 2 is proved by applying Theorem 1, the strong-duality theorem of Gao and Kleywegt [15], to the regret function R(x,·), followed by a standard conjugate computation (sup_z {z^T ξ − λ‖z‖} = 0 if ‖ξ‖_* ≤ λ, and ∞ otherwise); the optimal dual multiplier then computes as λ* = sup_{v∈X}‖x−v‖_*, which is exactly the regularizer in (7). The feasible set X, the ambiguity set P, and the regret function R are all defined independently of the asserted regularizer, no parameter is fitted to data, and (7) is the Kantorovich–Rubinstein dual for Lipschitz functions evaluated at R(x,·) — so the conclusion is not an input by construction. The soft spot is Theorem 3, whose proof is sketched: the step from (25) to the asserted identity (23) reads “follow a line of reasoning similar to that used in the proof of Theorem 2,” omitting the needed Lipschitz-modulus argument for max{R(x,w)−τ,0} (which equals sup_{v∈X}‖x−v‖_*, since the positive part is 1-Lipschitz) and the verification that the minimax exchange (24)–(25) satisfies the hypotheses of [10, Theorem 4.5]. This is a genuine completeness gap, explicitly flagged in the text (“one can employ Theorem 1 … and follow a line of reasoning similar”), but it is not circular: the identity follows from the same external duality applied to h_τ, not from the paper's own conclusions. The only self-citation, [1] (Al Taha, Yan, Bitar), appears in Section 1.1 as contextual motivation and is never invoked in any proof, so it is non-load-bearing. The regularization is also not silently renamed: Remark 1 explicitly credits [21, Theorem 6.3] and [19, Theorem 10] for the analogous Lipschitz-regularization phenomenon and positions the paper's contribution as the regret-specific derivation and its extension to arbitrary nominal distributions. Verdict: one minor contextual self-citation; central claims independent; no circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external machinery: Wasserstein strong duality and a minimax theorem for the CVaR extension. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities are introduced. The only domain assumption is compactness of X and finite first moment of P0. The paper does not derive its own auxiliary lemmas in a self-contained way, but that is standard for this field.

assumptions (4)

standard math Strong duality for worst-case expectation over type-1 Wasserstein balls (Theorem 1 from [15]).
Invoked in the proofs of Theorems 2 and 3 to replace the inner supremum over distributions by a dual infimum over lambda. It is an external theorem, not proved in the paper.
standard math Sion-type minimax theorem allowing interchange of inf_tau and sup_P in (24).
Used in the proof of Theorem 3 to move the worst-case distribution inside the CVaR formula. The paper cites [10, Theorem 4.5] for the conditions.
standard math The type-1 Wasserstein ball P is nonempty, convex, and weakly compact.
Needed for the minimax exchange in the proof of Theorem 3. The paper cites [28, Theorem 1] for this property.
domain assumption The feasible set X is nonempty and compact, and the nominal distribution P0 has finite first moment.
Ensures R(x,.) is P0-integrable and that the regularization term sup_{v in X} ||x-v||_* is finite. This is used throughout Sections 2 and 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributionally Robust Regret Minimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DEL6DLJY

@misc{pith2026241215406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributionally Robust Regret Minimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DEL6DLJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15406}
}

read the original abstract

We consider decision-making problems involving the optimization of linear objective functions with uncertain coefficients. The probability distribution of the coefficients--which are assumed to be stochastic in nature--is unknown to the decision maker but is assumed to lie within a given ambiguity set, defined as a type-1 Wasserstein ball centered at a given nominal distribution. To account for this uncertainty, we minimize the worst-case expected regret over all distributions in the ambiguity set. Here, the (ex post) regret experienced by the decision maker is defined as the difference between the cost incurred by a chosen decision given a particular realization of the objective coefficients and the minimum achievable cost with perfect knowledge of the coefficients at the outset. For this class of ambiguity sets, the worst-case expected regret is shown to equal the expected regret under the nominal distribution plus a regularization term that has the effect of drawing optimal solutions toward the "center" of the feasible region as the radius of the ambiguity set increases. This novel form of regularization is also shown to arise when minimizing the worst-case conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) of regret. We show that, under certain conditions, distributionally robust regret minimization problems over type-1 Wasserstein balls can be recast as tractable finite-dimensional convex programs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15406 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Oracle-Based Distributionally Robust Optimization under Optimal Transport Ambiguity Sets
math.OC 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper reduces worst-case expectation in transport-based DRO to a scalar budget allocation and gives a scalable oracle-based algorithm plus a tight new support bound for the dual problem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[10]

A variational approac h to lagrange multipliers

Jonathan M Borwein and Qiji J Zhu. A variational approac h to lagrange multipliers. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 171:727–756, 2016

work page 2016
[28]

On l inear optimization over wasser- stein balls

Man-Chung Yue, Daniel Kuhn, and Wolfram Wiesemann. On l inear optimization over wasser- stein balls. Mathematical Programming, 195(1):1107–1122, 2022

work page 2022
[15]

Distributionally robust st ochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance

Rui Gao and Anton Kleywegt. Distributionally robust st ochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance. Mathematics of Operations Research , 48(2):603–655, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

A distributi onally robust approach to regret optimal control using the wasserstein distance

Feras Al Taha, Shuhao Yan, and Eilyan Bitar. A distributi onally robust approach to regret optimal control using the wasserstein distance. In 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 2768–2775. IEEE, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Coherent measures of risk

Philippe Artzner, Freddy Delbaen, Jean-Marc Eber, and D avid Heath. Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical ﬁnance , 9(3):203–228, 1999

work page 1999
[3]

Minmax regret linear resource allocatio n problems

Igor Averbakh. Minmax regret linear resource allocatio n problems. Operations Research Let- ters, 32(2):174–180, 2004

work page 2004
[4]

On the complexity of m inmax regret linear programming

Igor Averbakh and Vasilij Lebedev. On the complexity of m inmax regret linear programming. European Journal of Operational Research , 160(1):227–231, 2005

work page 2005
[5]

Deriving robust counterparts of nonlinear uncertain inequalities

Aharon Ben-Tal, Dick Den Hertog, and Jean-Philippe Vial . Deriving robust counterparts of nonlinear uncertain inequalities. Mathematical programming, 149(1):265–299, 2015

work page 2015

Show all 29 references

[6]

Robust optimization, volume 28

Aharon Ben-Tal, Laurent El Ghaoui, and Arkadi Nemirovsk i. Robust optimization, volume 28. Princeton university press, 2009

2009
[7]

Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs

Aharon Ben-Tal and Arkadi Nemirovski. Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Op- erations research letters , 25(1):1–13, 1999. 3For example, [17, Corollary 1] shows that it is #P-hard to com pute the expected value of the non-negative part of a linear combination of un...

1999
[8]

Relative robust an d adaptive optimization

Dimitris Bertsimas and Iain Dunning. Relative robust an d adaptive optimization. INFORMS Journal on Computing , 32(2):408–427, 2020

2020
[9]

Quantifying distrib utional model risk via optimal trans- port

Jose Blanchet and Karthyek Murthy. Quantifying distrib utional model risk via optimal trans- port. Mathematics of Operations Research , 44(2):565–600, 2019

2019
[11]

Regret in the newsvendor model w ith demand and yield randomness

Zhi Chen and Weijun Xie. Regret in the newsvendor model w ith demand and yield randomness. Production and Operations Management , 30(11):4176–4197, 2021

2021
[12]

Wasserstein distributi onally robust regret minimization

Youngchae Cho and Insoon Yang. Wasserstein distributi onally robust regret minimization. IEEE Control Systems Letters , 2024

2024
[13]

On the complexity of the continuous unbo unded knapsack problem with uncertain coeﬃcients

Eduardo Conde. On the complexity of the continuous unbo unded knapsack problem with uncertain coeﬃcients. Operations research letters, 33(5):481–485, 2005

2005
[14]

Robustness and dual ity in linear programming

Virginie Gabrel and C´ eline Murat. Robustness and dual ity in linear programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society , 61(8):1288–1296, 2010

2010
[16]

Wassers tein distributionally robust regret- optimal control under partial observability

Joudi Hajar, Taylan Kargin, and Babak Hassibi. Wassers tein distributionally robust regret- optimal control under partial observability. In 2023 59th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023

2023
[17]

computational complexity of stochastic programming problems

Grani A Hanasusanto, Daniel Kuhn, and Wolfram Wieseman n. A comment on “computational complexity of stochastic programming problems”. Mathematical Programming, 159:557–569, 2016

2016
[18]

Wasserstein distributionally robust regret-optimal control over inﬁnite-horizon

Taylan Kargin, Joudi Hajar, Vikrant Malik, and Babak Ha ssibi. Wasserstein distributionally robust regret-optimal control over inﬁnite-horizon. In 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, pages 1688–1701. PMLR, 2024

2024
[19]

Wasserstein distributionally robust optimizatio n: Theory and applications in machine learning

Daniel Kuhn, Peyman Mohajerin Esfahani, Viet Anh Nguye n, and Soroosh Shaﬁeezadeh- Abadeh. Wasserstein distributionally robust optimizatio n: Theory and applications in machine learning. In Operations research & management science in the age of analy tics, pages 130–166. Informs, 2019

2019
[20]

A variable-complexit y norm maximization problem

Olvi L Mangasarian and T-H Shiau. A variable-complexit y norm maximization problem. SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods , 7(3):455–461, 1986

1986
[21]

Data-drive n distributionally robust optimiza- tion using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations

Peyman Mohajerin Esfahani and Daniel Kuhn. Data-drive n distributionally robust optimiza- tion using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Math- ematical Programming, 171(1-2):115–166, 2018

2018
[22]

A p robabilistic model for minmax regret in combinatorial optimization

Karthik Natarajan, Dongjian Shi, and Kim-Chuan Toh. A p robabilistic model for minmax regret in combinatorial optimization. Operations Research, 62(1):160–181, 2014

2014
[23]

Regret in the news vendor model with partial informa- tion

Georgia Perakis and Guillaume Roels. Regret in the news vendor model with partial informa- tion. Operations research, 56(1):188–203, 2008. 11

2008
[24]

Adjustable robus t optimization reformulations of two- stage worst-case regret minimization problems

Mehran Poursoltani and Erick Delage. Adjustable robus t optimization reformulations of two- stage worst-case regret minimization problems. Operations Research, 70(5):2906–2930, 2022

2022
[25]

Risk-averse regret minimization in multistage stochastic programs

Mehran Poursoltani, Erick Delage, and Angelos Georghi ou. Risk-averse regret minimization in multistage stochastic programs. Operations Research, 72(4):1727–1738, 2024

2024
[26]

The theory of statistical decision

Leonard J Savage. The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical association, 46(253):55–67, 1951

1951
[27]

Expect ed value of distribution information for the newsvendor problem

Jinfeng Yue, Bintong Chen, and Min-Chiang Wang. Expect ed value of distribution information for the newsvendor problem. Operations research, 54(6):1128–1136, 2006

2006
[29]

Newsvendor optim ization with limited distribution information

Zhisu Zhu, Jiawei Zhang, and Yinyu Ye. Newsvendor optim ization with limited distribution information. Optimization methods and software , 28(3):640–667, 2013. 12

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

A variational approac h to lagrange multipliers

Jonathan M Borwein and Qiji J Zhu. A variational approac h to lagrange multipliers. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 171:727–756, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [28]

On l inear optimization over wasser- stein balls

Man-Chung Yue, Daniel Kuhn, and Wolfram Wiesemann. On l inear optimization over wasser- stein balls. Mathematical Programming, 195(1):1107–1122, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [15]

Distributionally robust st ochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance

Rui Gao and Anton Kleywegt. Distributionally robust st ochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance. Mathematics of Operations Research , 48(2):603–655, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [1]

A distributi onally robust approach to regret optimal control using the wasserstein distance

Feras Al Taha, Shuhao Yan, and Eilyan Bitar. A distributi onally robust approach to regret optimal control using the wasserstein distance. In 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 2768–2775. IEEE, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [2]

Coherent measures of risk

Philippe Artzner, Freddy Delbaen, Jean-Marc Eber, and D avid Heath. Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical ﬁnance , 9(3):203–228, 1999

work page 1999

[6] [3]

Minmax regret linear resource allocatio n problems

Igor Averbakh. Minmax regret linear resource allocatio n problems. Operations Research Let- ters, 32(2):174–180, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [4]

On the complexity of m inmax regret linear programming

Igor Averbakh and Vasilij Lebedev. On the complexity of m inmax regret linear programming. European Journal of Operational Research , 160(1):227–231, 2005

work page 2005

[8] [5]

Deriving robust counterparts of nonlinear uncertain inequalities

Aharon Ben-Tal, Dick Den Hertog, and Jean-Philippe Vial . Deriving robust counterparts of nonlinear uncertain inequalities. Mathematical programming, 149(1):265–299, 2015

work page 2015