Construct stochastic pareto frontier

What it's for

Lets boards and product leaders see which investments remain defensible across uncertain futures instead of comparing only expected-value dots.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "alternatives": [
    {
      "criterion_scenarios": {
        "cash": [
          500,
          500,
          500
        ],
        "npv": [
          100,
          400,
          700
        ],
        "risk": [
          0.7,
          0.4,
          0.2
        ]
      },
      "id": "growth"
    },
    {
      "criterion_scenarios": {
        "cash": [
          300,
          300,
          300
        ],
        "npv": [
          250,
          350,
          450
        ],
        "risk": [
          0.3,
          0.2,
          0.15
        ]
      },
      "id": "platform"
    },
    {
      "criterion_scenarios": {

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "alternative_diagnostics": [
    {
      "alternative_id": "platform",
      "expected_criteria": {
        "cash": 300,
        "npv": 360,
        "risk": 0.205
      },
      "frontier_membership_probability": 1,
      "robust_frontier": true,
      "strongest_dominance_probability": 0,
      "strongest_dominator_id": "growth"
    },
    {
      "alternative_id": "growth",
      "expected_criteria": {
        "cash": 500,
        "npv": 430,
        "risk": 0.4
      },
      "frontier_membership_probability": 0.8,
      "robust_frontier": true,
      "strongest_dominance_probability": 0.2,
      "strongest_dominator_id": "platform"
    },
    {
      "alternative_id": "legacy",
      "expected_criteria": {
        "cash": 450,
        "npv": 185,
        "risk": 0.49
      },
      "frontier_membership_probability": 0,
      "robust_frontier": false,
      "strongest_dominance_probability": 1,
      "strongest_dominator_id": "platform"
    }
  ],
  "assumptions": [
    "Every criterion uses aligned joint scenarios, a common horizon, direction, and practical epsilon.",
    "Scenario probabilities represent the governed decision model; membership is conditional on that model, not a sampling confidence interval.",
    "Stochastic nondominance exposes tradeoffs and does not select one alternative without preferences and feasibility checks."
  ],

How it works

Statistical audit & measurement — Check whether a number is fit to decide on: coverage, timing, reconciliation, and the gaps a dashboard hides.

1. 1 Freeze alternatives, feasibility, criterion directions/units/epsilons, aligned joint scenario columns, probabilities, and chance-dominance gates.
2. 2 Find each scenario's deterministic practical frontier, integrate frontier membership probability, and calculate every ordered pair's probability of practical dominance.
3. 3 Retain alternatives whose frontier membership clears the governed gate and that lack a high-probability dominator, then expose remaining tradeoffs without selecting one winner.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "construct a stochastic pareto frontier from" }
  → finds "construct_stochastic_pareto_frontier"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "construct_stochastic_pareto_frontier" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "construct_stochastic_pareto_frontier", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Investment & portfolio choice →