Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of “tail risk” has been a crucial consideration in modern risk management and financial regulation, as very well documented in the recent regulatory documents. To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the tail risk, we carry out an axiomatic study for risk measures that quantify the tail risk, that is, the behaviour of a risk beyond a certain quantile. Such risk measures are referred to as tail risk measures in this paper. The two popular classes of regulatory risk measures in banking and insurance, value at risk (VaR) and expected shortfall, are prominent, yet elementary, examples of tail risk measures. We establish a connection between a tail risk measure and a corresponding law-invariant risk measure, called its generator, and investigate their joint properties. A tail risk measure inherits many properties from its generator, but not subadditivity or convexity; nevertheless, a tail risk measure is coherent if and only if its generator is coherent. We explore further relevant issues on tail risk measures, such as bounds, distortion risk measures, risk aggregation, elicitability, and dual representations. In particular, there is no elicitable tail convex risk measure other than the essential supremum, and under a continuity condition, the only elicitable and positively homogeneous monetary tail risk measures are the VaRs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".