Computing value-at-risk using genetic algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Value-at-risk (VaR) is a risk measure of potential loss on a specific portfolio. The main uses of VaR are in risk management and financial reporting. Researchers are continuously looking for new and efficient ways to evaluate VaR, and the 2008 financial crisis has given further impetus to finding new and reliable ways of evaluating and using VaR. In this study, the authors use genetic algorithm (GA) to evaluate VaR and compare the results with conventional VaR techniques. Design/methodology/approach – In essence, the authors propose two modifications to the standard GA: normalized population selection and strict population selection. For a typical set of simulation, eight chromosomes were used each with eight stored values, and the authors get eight values for VaR. Findings – The experiments using data from four different market indices show that by adjusting the volatility, the VaR computed using GA is more conservative as compared to those computed using Monte Carlo simulation. Research limitations/implications – The proposed methodology is designed for VaR computation only. This could be generalized for other applications. Practical implications – This is achieved with much less cost of computation, and hence, the proposed methodology could be a viable practical approach for computing VaR. Originality/value – The proposed methodology is simple and, at the same time, novel that could have far-reaching impact on practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".