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
ABSTRACT We introduce backtesting methods to assess Value-at-Risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) that require no more than desktop VaR violations as inputs. Maintaining an integrated VaR perspective, our methodology relies on multiple testing to combine evidence on the frequency and dynamic evolution of violations, and to capture more information than a single threshold can provide about the magnitude of violations. Contributions include a formal finite sample analysis of the joint distribution of multi-threshold violations, and limiting results that unify discrete and continuous definitions of cumulative violations across thresholds. Simulation studies demonstrate the power advantages of the proposed tests, particularly with small samples and when underlying models are unavailable to assessors. Results also reinforce the usefulness of CaViaR approaches not just for VaR but also as ES back-tests. Empirically, we assess desktop data by Bloomberg on exchange traded funds. We find that tail risk is not adequately reflected via a wide spectrum of models and available measures. Results provide useful prescriptions for empirical practice and, more generally, reinforce the recent arguments in favor of combined tests and forecasts in tail risk management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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