MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276376831 · doi:10.1515/demo-2015-0009

Seven Proofs for the Subadditivity ofExpected Shortfall

2015· article· en· W2276376831 on OpenAlex

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

VenueDependence Modeling · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichSwiss Finance Institute
KeywordsSubadditivityMathematical proofEstimatorMathematicsConsistency (knowledge bases)Mathematical economicsCalculus (dental)Discrete mathematicsStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Subadditivity is the key property which distinguishes the popular risk measures Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall (ES). In this paper we offer seven proofs of the subadditivity of ES, some found in the literature and some not. One of the main objectives of this paper is to provide a general guideline for instructors to teach the subadditivity of ES in a course. We discuss the merits and suggest appropriate contexts for each proof.With different proofs, different important properties of ES are revealed, such as its dual representation, optimization properties, continuity, consistency with convex order, and natural estimators.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.089 · 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