SSD Consistent Criteria and Coherent Risk Measures

  • W. Ogryczak
  • M. Opolska-Rutkowska
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 199)


The mean-risk approach quantifies the problem of choice among uncertain prospects in a lucid form of only two criteria: the mean, representing the expected outcome, and the risk: a scalar measure of the variability of outcomes. The model is appealing to decision makers but it may lead to inferior conclusions. Several risk measures, however, can be combined with the mean itself into the robust optimization criteria thus generating SSD consistent performances (safety) measures. In this paper we introduce general conditions for risk measures sufficient to provide the SSD consistency of the corresponding safety measures.


decisions under risk stochastic dominance mean-risk 


  1. [1]
    Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., Heath, D. (1999), Coherent measures of risk. Math. Finance, 9, 203–228.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Baumol, W.J. (1964), An expected gain-confidence limit criterion for portfolio selection. Manag. Sci., 10, 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Dentcheva, D., Ruszczyński, A. (2004), Convexification of stochastic ordering constraints, Compt. Res. l’Acad. Bulgare Sci., 57, 11–16.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Fishburn, P.C. (1964), Decision and Value Theory, Wiley, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hanoch, G., Levy, H. (1969), The efficiency analysis of choices involving risk, Revue Econ. Studies, 36, 335–346.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hardy, G.H., Littlewood, J.E., Polya, G. (1934), Inequalities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Leshno, M., Levy, H., Spector, Y. (1997), A Comment on Rothschild and Stiglitz’s “Increasing risk: I. A definition”, J. Econ. Theory, 77, 223–228.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Mansini, R., Ogryczak, W., Speranza, M.G. (2003), LP solvable models for portfolio optimization: A classification and computational comparison, IMA J. Manag. Math., 14, 187–220.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Markowitz, H.M. (1952), Portfolio selection, J. Finance, 7, 77–91.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Marshall, A.W., Olkin, I. (1979), Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications, Academic Press, NY, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Müller, A., Stoyan, D. (2002), Comparison Methods for Stochastic Models and Risks, Wiley, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ogryczak, W., Ruszczyński, A. (1999), From stochastic dominance to mean-risk models: Semideviations as risk measures, European J. Opnl. Res., 116, 33–50.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ogryczak, W., Ruszczyński, A. (2001), On stochastic dominance and mean-semideviation models. Mathematical Programming, 89, 217–232.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Ogryczak, W., Ruszczyńiski, A. (2002), Dual stochastic dominance and related mean-risk models, SIAM J. Optimization, 13, 60–78.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Porter, R.B. (1974), Semivariance and stochastic dominance: A comparison, American Econ. Review, 64, 200–204.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Rockafellar, R.T., Uryasev, S. (2000), Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J. Risk, 2, 21–41.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Rothschild, M., Stiglitz, J.E. (1970), Increasing risk: I. A definition, J. Econ. Theory, 2, 225–243.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Yitzhaki, S. (1982), Stochastic dominance, mean variance, and Gini’s mean difference, American Econ. Review, 72, 178–185.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Ogryczak
    • 1
  • M. Opolska-Rutkowska
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Control & Computation EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Institute of MathematicsWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations