On the Lp-Norm Regression Models for Estimating Value-at-Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of risk measures associated with price series datamovements and its predictions are of strategic importance in the financial markets as well as to policy makers in particular for short- and longterm planning for setting up economic growth targets. For example, oilprice risk-management focuses primarily on when and how an organization can best prevent the costly exposure to price risk. Value-at-Risk (VaR) is the commonly practised instrument to measure risk and is evaluated by analysing the negative/positive tail of the probability distributions of the returns (profit or loss). In modelling applications, least-squares estimation (LSE)-based linear regression models are often employed for modeling and analyzing correlated data. These linear models are optimal and perform relatively well under conditions such as errorsfollowing normal or approximately normal distributions, being free of large size outliers and satisfyingthe Gauss-Markov assumptions. However, often in practical situations, the LSE-based linear regressionmodels fail to provide optimal results, for instance, in non-Gaussian situations especially when the errorsfollow distributions with fat tails and error terms possess a finite variance. This is the situation in case of risk analysis which involves analyzing tail distributions.Thus, applications of the LSE-based regression models may be questioned for appropriateness and may have limited applicability. We have carried out the risk analysis of Iranian crude oil price databased on the Lp-norm regression models and have noted that the LSE-based models do not alwaysperform the best. We discuss results from the L1, L2 and L∞-norm based linear regression models.ACM Computing Classification System (1998): B.1.2, F.1.3, F.2.3, G.3, J.2.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".