MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888369039 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.07339

Scenario-based Risk Evaluation

2018· preprint· en· W2888369039 on OpenAlexaff
Ruodu Wang, Johanna F. Ziegel

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk measures such as Expected Shortfall (ES) and Value-at-Risk (VaR) have been prominent in banking regulation and financial risk management. Motivated by practical considerations in the assessment and management of risks, including tractability, scenario relevance and robustness, we consider theoretical properties of scenario-based risk evaluation. We propose several novel scenario-based risk measures, including various versions of Max-ES and Max-VaR, and study their properties. We establish axiomatic characterizations of scenario-based risk measures that are comonotonic-additive or coherent and an ES-based representation result is obtained. These results provide a theoretical foundation for the recent Basel III & IV market risk calculation formulas. We illustrate the theory with financial data examples.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.028 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207