The name is absent

Incremental Risk Vulnerability

to one, and E(∆(y)) = 0. Equivalently, this can be reformulated as a parametric linear
program where the non-linearity is eliminated by writing r as a parameter

min f (w,y,s) = ∑ qi [∆(yi) ^{-u'"(Wi) - u"(Wi)f}]               (11)

{qi}                       _i

s.t.

∑ q i∆( y i) = 0                              (12)

i

∑ q i = 1,                                  (13)

i

the definitional constraint for the parameter r

r ∑ qiu'(Wi) = - ∑ qiu"(Wi)                       (14)

ii

and the non-negativity constraints

qi ≥ 0, ∀i.                                         (15)

Consider the optimal solution. Since this optimization problem has three constraints, there
are three variables in the basis. Number these as i =1, 2,a, with ∆(y1) < 0 < ∆(y2)
and y1 + s∆(y1) <y2 + s∆(y2). The associated probabilities are q1,q2,qa, such that
q₁∆(y₁)+q_a∆(y_a)+q₂∆(y₂)=0. There are two possibilities with respect to the state
a.

Either:

a = 0. Then ∆(ya) = ∆(y0) = 0. Hence, we immediately obtain equation (16).

or:

a = 0. In this case we drop the constraint on q0 ≥ 0 (with all the other qis staying
non-negative). Hence the probability associated with y0 can be negative. Dropping this
constraint will lead to a condition that is too demanding. However, since we are searching
for a sufficient condition, this is fine. In the original optimisation, all the non-basis variables
had nonnegative coefficients in the objective function in the final simplex tableau. Allowing
q0 < 0 must result therefore in q0 replacing either q1, q2 or qa in the optimal basis. Also,
the new f -value is either lower or the same as before.

Suppose, first, that q0 replaces qa in the optimal basis. Then the new basis variables
are q1, q2 and q0. Since ∆(y0) = 0, we can write the objective function (11) as

<<   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   >>

More intriguing information