MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944129010 · doi:10.1080/10920277.2019.1566075

Nonparametric Inference for VaR, CTE, and Expectile with High-Order Precision

2019· article· en· W2944129010 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiyi Shen, Yukun Liu, Chengguo Weng

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEconometricsInferenceValue at riskExpected shortfallNonparametric statisticsStatisticsEstimationInterval estimationRisk measureEmpirical likelihoodStatistical inferenceRisk managementComputer scienceMathematicsConfidence intervalEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value-at-Risk and Conditional Tail Expectation are the two most frequently applied risk measures in quantitative risk management. Recently expectile has also attracted much attention as a risk measure because of its elicitability property. This article establishes empirical likelihood–based estimation with high-order precision for these three risk measures. The superiority of the estimation is justified both in theory and via simulation studies. Extensive simulation studies confirm that our method significantly improves the coverage probabilities for interval estimation of the three risk measures, compared to three competing methods available in the literature.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207