Stochastic Optimization System for Bank Reverse Stress Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent evolution of prudential regulation establishes a new requirement for banks and supervisors to perform reverse stress test exercises in their risk assessment processes, aimed at detecting default or near-default scenarios. We propose a reverse stress test methodology based on a stochastic simulation optimization system. This methodology enables users to derive the critical combination of risk factors that, by triggering a preset key capital indicator threshold, causes the bank’s default, thus detecting the set of assumptions that defines the reverse stress test scenario. This article presents a theoretical presentation of the approach, providing a general description of the stochastic framework and, for illustrative purposes, an example of the application of the proposed methodology to the Italian banking sector, in order to illustrate the possible advantages of the approach in a simplified framework, which highlights the basic functioning of the model. In the paper, we also show how to take into account some relevant risk factor interactions and second round effects such as liquidity–solvency interlinkage and modeling of Pillar 2 risks including interest rate risk, sovereign risk, and reputational risk. The reverse stress test technique presented is a practical and manageable risk assessment approach, suitable for both micro- and macro-prudential analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".