MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054616397 · doi:10.4171/rmi/293

Harmonic analysis in value at risk calculations

2001· article· en· W2054616397 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudio Albanese, Luis Seco

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Matemática Iberoamericana · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsValue (mathematics)HarmonicStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value at Risk is a measure of risk exposure of a portfolio and is defined as the maximum possible loss in a certain time frame, typically 1-20 days, and within a certain confidence, typically 95%. Full valuation of a portfolio under a large number of scenarios is a lengthy process. To speed it up, one can make use of the total delta vector and the total gamma matrix of a portfolio and compute a Gaussian integral over a region bounded by a quadric. We use methods from harmonic analysis to find approximate analytic formulas for the Value at Risk as a function of time and of the confidence level. In this framework, the calculation is reduced to the problem of evaluating linear algebra invariants such as traces of products of matrices, which arise from a Feynmann expansion. The use of Fourier transforms is crucial to re-sum the expansions and to obtain formulas that smoothly interpolate between low and large confidence levels, as well as between short and long time horizons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Matemática IberoamericanaSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207