Multiple risk factor dependence structures: Copulas and related\n properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copulas have become an important tool in the modern best practice Enterprise\nRisk Management, often supplanting other approaches to modelling stochastic\ndependence. However, choosing the `right' copula is not an easy task, and the\ntemptation to prefer a tractable rather than a meaningful candidate from the\nencompassing copulas toolbox is strong. The ubiquitous applications of the\nGaussian copula is just one illuminating example.\n Speaking generally, a `good' copula should conform to the problem at hand,\nallow for asymmetry in the domain of definition and exhibit some extent of tail\ndependence. In this paper we introduce and study a new class of Multiple Risk\nFactor (MRF) copula functions, which we show are exactly such. Namely, the MRF\ncopulas (1) arise from a number of meaningful default risk specification with\nstochastic default barriers, (2) are in general non-exchangeable and (3)\npossess a variety of tail dependences. That being said, the MRF copulas turn\nout to be surprisingly tractable analytically.\n
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".