arXiv 论文量化数据驱动策略的尾部风险:风险溢价可占后悔值的 74%-97%
How Risky Is Your Data-Driven Policy?
一篇理论论文,把数据驱动策略的风险拆开算清楚,算出风险溢价能占后悔值的 74%-97%,做决策优化的可以看看。
arXiv 论文 2611.04292v1 用条件风险价值(CVaR)刻画数据驱动策略在训练样本、随机化和未来结果上的风险。论文将相对全知 oracle 的后悔值分解为样本后后悔(PS)、仅结果 CVaR 差距和样本风险溢价(SR)三部分,并给出溢价消失的条件。结果显示,在尾部密度连续时溢价与样本后后悔同阶衰减,但极限比值可达数千;当截止点处有随动作变动的概率质量时,溢价衰减更慢并主导后悔值。理论表明 SAA 以 n^{-1/2} 速率学习 oracle 动作,其组合风险后悔分别为 n^{-1} 与 n^{-1/2} 阶,数值实验中风险溢价约占后悔值的 74%-97%。
How Risky Is Your Data-Driven Policy?
Data-driven algorithms are ubiquitous across industries, and there is an extensive literature on analyzing their \emph{average} performance. The risk profile of such algorithms, while critical, is much less understood. This paper quantifies the risk of data-driven policies and isolates its sources. We evaluate a policy through the conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) of its loss over the training sample, any policy randomization, and the future outcome, at a fixed unknown distribution. Regret against an oracle that knows the distribution decomposes into expected post-sample regret (PS), the average outcome-only CVaR gap of the selected action, and a sample-risk premium (SR), the additional tail risk omitted by averaging those evaluations. The analogous premium vanishes under expected loss. We characterize when the premium vanishes and how large it is relative to post-sample regret. For losses with a continuous density near the tail cutoff, we identify conditions under which both components decay at the same rate, yet the limiting ratio of the premium to post-sample regret can reach the thousands. When a probability mass at the cutoff moves with the action, the premium can decay more slowly and dominate post-sample regret. We establish conditions under which sample average approximation learns the oracle action at rate $n^{-1/2}$ in both settings, but its combined-risk regret is of order $n^{-1}$ in the first and $n^{-1/2}$ in the second. In finite-sample numerical examples of SAA in both settings, the premium accounts for approximately $74\%$--$97\%$ of regret.