Analysis and Forecasting of Risk in Count Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk measures are commonly used to prepare for a prospective occurrence of an adverse event. If we are concerned with discrete risk phenomena such as counts of natural disasters, counts of infections by a serious disease, or counts of certain economic events, then the required risk forecasts are to be computed for an underlying count process. In practice, however, the discrete nature of count data is sometimes ignored and risk forecasts are calculated based on Gaussian time series models. But even if methods from count time series analysis are used in an adequate manner, the performance of risk forecasting is affected by estimation uncertainty as well as certain discreteness phenomena. To get a thorough overview of the aforementioned issues in risk forecasting of count processes, a comprehensive simulation study was done considering a broad variety of risk measures and count time series models. It becomes clear that Gaussian approximate risk forecasts substantially distort risk assessment and, thus, should be avoided. In order to account for the apparent estimation uncertainty in risk forecasting, we use bootstrap approaches for count time series. The relevance and the application of the proposed approaches are illustrated by real data examples about counts of storm surges and counts of financial transactions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".