Bias-Corrected Peaks-Over-Threshold Estimation of the CVaR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) is a useful risk measure in fields such as machine learning, finance, insurance, energy, etc. When measuring very extreme risk, the commonly used CVaR estimation method of sample averaging does not work well due to limited data above the value-at-risk (VaR), the quantile corresponding to the CVaR level. To mitigate this problem, the CVaR can be estimated by extrapolating above a lower threshold than the VaR using a generalized Pareto distribution (GPD), which is often referred to as the peaks-over-threshold (POT) approach. This method often requires a very high threshold to fit well, leading to high variance in estimation, and can induce significant bias if the threshold is chosen too low. In this paper, we address this bias-variance tradeoff by deriving a new expression for the GPD approximation error of the CVaR, a bias term induced by the choice of threshold, as well as a bias correction method for the estimated GPD parameters. This leads to the derivation of a new CVaR estimator that is asymptotically unbiased and less sensitive to lower thresholds being used. An asymptotic confidence interval for the estimator is also constructed. In a practical setting, we show through experiments that our estimator provides a significant performance improvement compared with competing CVaR estimators in finite samples from heavy-tailed distributions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".