Optimal Design, Robustness, and Risk Aversion

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2002, Pages

  Newman, M E J ^a,b   Girvan, Michelle ^a,c   Doyne Farmer, J ^a  

^a SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c Cornell University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FAILURE ANALYSIS; FIRES; FITS AND TOLERANCES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OPTIMIZATION; PROBABILITY; RISK MANAGEMENT;

RISK AVERSION;

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

EID: 0037043004     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.028301     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. J. M. Carlson and J. Doyle, Phys. Rev. E 60, 1412 (1999).
2. J. M. Carlson and J. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2529 (2000).
3. J. Doyle and J. M. Carlson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5656 (2000).
4. T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory (Wiley, New York,1991).
5. M. E. J. Newman and R. M. Ziff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4104 (2000).
6. B. D. Malamud, G. Morein, and D. L. Turcotte, Science 281, 1840 (1998).
7. L. J. Savage, The Foundations of Statistics (Dover, New York,1972), 2nd ed.
8. In traditional economics, utility functions are usually defined to be increasing functions of their arguments; this could be arranged in the present case, if necessary, by substituting (Formula presented).
9. A similar result can also be derived within the framework of the “PLR” model of Ref.
10. For other models or parameter regimes, such as the continuum version of the forest fire model with large (Formula presented) or the models of Ref.