MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008447057 · doi:10.1515/strm-2020-0006

On the extension property of dilatation monotone risk measures

2020· preprint· en· W3008447057 on OpenAlexafffund
Massoomeh Rahsepar, Foivos Xanthos

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics & Risk Modeling · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonotone polygonMathematicsMonotonic functionConvexityCombinatoricsExtension (predicate logic)Invariant (physics)Norm (philosophy)Quasiconvex functionPure mathematicsRegular polygonMathematical analysisMathematical physicsConvex set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let 𝒳 be a subset of L 1 L^{1} that contains the space of simple random variables ℒ and ρ : X → ( - ∞ , ∞ ] \rho\colon\mathcal{X}\to(-\infty,\infty] a dilatation monotone functional with the Fatou property. In this note, we show that 𝜌 extends uniquely to a σ ⁢ ( L 1 , L ) \sigma(L^{1},\mathcal{L}) lower semicontinuous and dilatation monotone functional ρ ¯ : L 1 → ( - ∞ , ∞ ] \overline{\rho}\colon L^{1}\to(-\infty,\infty] . Moreover, ρ ¯ \overline{\rho} preserves monotonicity, (quasi)convexity and cash-additivity of 𝜌. We also study conditions under which ρ ¯ \overline{\rho} preserves finiteness on a larger domain. Our findings complement extension and continuity results for (quasi)convex law-invariant functionals. As an application of our results, we show that transformed norm risk measures on Orlicz hearts admit a natural extension to L 1 L^{1} that retains robust representations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics & Risk ModelingSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207