TY - JOUR
T1 - Risk aversion in multistage stochastic programming
T2 - A modeling and algorithmic perspective
AU - Homem-De-Mello, Tito
AU - Pagnoncelli, Bernardo K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO) with in the International Federation of Operational Research Societies(IFORS). All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/2/16
Y1 - 2016/2/16
N2 - We discuss the incorporation of risk measures into multistage stochastic programs. While much attention has been recently devoted in the literature to this type of model, it appears that there is no consensus on the best way to accomplish that goal. In this paper, we discuss pros and cons of some of the existing approaches. A key notion that must be considered in the analysis is that of consistency, which roughly speaking means that decisions made today should agree with the planning made yesterday for the scenario that actually occurred. Several definitions of consistency have been proposed in the literature, with various levels of rigor; we provide our own definition and give conditions for a multi-period risk measure to be consistent. A popular way to ensure consistency is to nest the one-step risk measures calculated in each stage, but such an approach has drawbacks from the algorithmic viewpoint. We discuss a class of risk measures - which we call expected conditional risk measures - that address those shortcomings. We illustrate the ideas set forth in the paper with numerical results for a pension fund problem in which a company acts as the sponsor of the fund and the participants' plan is defined-benefit.
AB - We discuss the incorporation of risk measures into multistage stochastic programs. While much attention has been recently devoted in the literature to this type of model, it appears that there is no consensus on the best way to accomplish that goal. In this paper, we discuss pros and cons of some of the existing approaches. A key notion that must be considered in the analysis is that of consistency, which roughly speaking means that decisions made today should agree with the planning made yesterday for the scenario that actually occurred. Several definitions of consistency have been proposed in the literature, with various levels of rigor; we provide our own definition and give conditions for a multi-period risk measure to be consistent. A popular way to ensure consistency is to nest the one-step risk measures calculated in each stage, but such an approach has drawbacks from the algorithmic viewpoint. We discuss a class of risk measures - which we call expected conditional risk measures - that address those shortcomings. We illustrate the ideas set forth in the paper with numerical results for a pension fund problem in which a company acts as the sponsor of the fund and the participants' plan is defined-benefit.
KW - Consistency
KW - Multistage
KW - Pension funds
KW - Risk aversion
KW - Stochastic programming
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948717828&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.048
DO - 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.048
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84948717828
SN - 0377-2217
VL - 249
SP - 188
EP - 199
JO - European Journal of Operational Research
JF - European Journal of Operational Research
IS - 1
ER -