Importance Sampling in the Presence of PD-LGD Correlation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to identify computationally efficient importance sampling (IS) algorithms for estimating large deviation probabilities for the loss on a portfolio of loans. Related literature typically assumes that realised losses on defaulted loans can be predicted with certainty, i.e., that loss given default (LGD) is non-random. In practice, however, LGD is impossible to predict and tends to be positively correlated with the default rate and the latter phenomenon is typically referred to as PD-LGD correlation (here PD refers to probability of default, which is often used synonymously with default rate). There is a large literature on modelling stochastic LGD and PD-LGD correlation, but there is a dearth of literature on using importance sampling to estimate large deviation probabilities in those models. Numerical evidence indicates that the proposed algorithms are extremely effective at reducing the computational burden associated with obtaining accurate estimates of large deviation probabilities across a wide variety of PD-LGD correlation models that have been proposed 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it