Inf-Convolution, Optimal Allocations, and Model Uncertainty for Tail Risk Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by the recent developments in risk sharing problems for the value at risk (VaR), the expected shortfall (ES), and the range value at risk (RVaR), we study the optimization of risk sharing for general tail risk measures. Explicit formulas of the inf-convolution and Pareto-optimal allocations are obtained in the case of a mixed collection of left and right VaRs, and in that of a VaR and another tail risk measure. The inf-convolution of tail risk measures is shown to be a tail risk measure with an aggregated tail parameter, a phenomenon very similar to the cases of VaR, ES, and RVaR. Optimal allocations are obtained in the settings of elliptical models and model uncertainty. In particular, several results are established for tail risk measures in the presence of model uncertainty, which may be of independent interest outside the framework of risk sharing. The technical conclusions are quite general without assuming any form of convexity of the tail risk measures. Our analysis generalizes in several directions the recent literature on quantile-based risk sharing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".