MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949914592 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.03098

Estimation of Risk Contributions with MCMC

2017· preprint· en· W2949914592 on OpenAlexafffund
Takaaki Koike, Mihoko Minami

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceKeio University
KeywordsEstimatorMarkov chain Monte CarloValue at riskEconometricsMonte Carlo methodMean squared errorConsistency (knowledge bases)StatisticsAsymptotic distributionMathematicsComputer scienceRisk managementEconomicsFinanceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining risk contributions of unit exposures to portfolio-wide economic capital is an important task in financial risk management. Computing risk contributions involves difficulties caused by rare-event simulations. In this study, we address the problem of estimating risk contributions when the total risk is measured by value-at-risk (VaR). Our proposed estimator of VaR contributions is based on the Metropolis-Hasting (MH) algorithm, which is one of the most prevalent Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Unlike existing estimators, our MH-based estimator consists of samples from conditional loss distribution given a rare event of interest. This feature enhances sample efficiency compared with the crude Monte Carlo method. Moreover, our method has the consistency and asymptotic normality, and is widely applicable to various risk models having joint loss density. Our numerical experiments based on simulation and real-world data demonstrate that in various risk models, even those having high-dimensional (approximately 500) inhomogeneous margins, our MH estimator has smaller bias and mean squared error compared with existing 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207