MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067516990 · doi:10.2143/ast.39.1.2038062

Estimating the Variance of Bootstrapped Risk Measures

2009· article· en· W2067516990 on OpenAlex
Joseph H.T. Kim, Mary R. Hardy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuantileEstimatorMathematicsMeasure (data warehouse)ResamplingVariance (accounting)StatisticsEconometricsExpected shortfallRisk measureComputer scienceRisk managementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Kim and Hardy (2007) the exact bootstrap was used to estimate certain risk measures including Value at Risk and the Conditional Tail Expectation. In this paper we continue this work by deriving the influence function of the exact-bootstrapped quantile risk measure. We can use the influence function to estimate the variance of the exact-bootstrap risk measure. We then extend the result to the L-estimator class, which includes the conditional tail expectation risk measure. The resulting formula provides an alternative way to estimate the variance of the bootstrapped risk measures, or the whole L-estimator class in an analytic form. A simulation study shows that this new method is comparable to the ordinary resampling-based bootstrap method, with the advantages of an analytic approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.280 · 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