MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201964780 · doi:10.23952/asvao.3.2021.3.09

A new view on risk measures associated with acceptance sets

2021· article· en· W3201964780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcel Marohn, Christiane Tammer

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Set-Valued Analysis and Optimization · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer sciencePsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the properties of certain risk measures associated with acceptance sets.These sets describe the regulatory preconditions that have to be fulfilled by financial institutions to pass a given acceptance test.If the financial position of an institution is not acceptable, the decision maker has to raise new capital and invest it into a basket of so called eligible assets to change the current position such that the resulting one corresponds with an element of the acceptance set.Risk measures have been widely studied in the literature.The risk measure that is considered here determines the minimal costs of making a financial position acceptable.In the literature, monetary risk measures are often defined as translation invariant functions and, thus, there is an equivalent formulation as the Gerstewitz-Functional, which is an useful tool for separation and scalarization in multiobjective optimization in the non-convex case.In our paper, we study properties of the sublevel sets, strict sublevel sets, and level lines of a risk measure defined on a linear space.Furthermore, we discuss the finiteness of the risk measure and relax the closedness assumptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Set-Valued Analysis and OptimizationSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207