MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242534416 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662176

Rearrangement Algorithm in Risk Aggregation

2021· preprint· en· W4242534416 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Thomas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk measureMeasure (data warehouse)Aggregate (composite)DiscretizationExpected shortfallExponential functionEconometricsPortfolioActuarial scienceInvestment (military)Coherent risk measureEconomicsMathematicsSpectral risk measureComputer scienceFinancial economicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sometimes there’s no closed-form analytical solutions for the risk measure of aggregate losses representing, say, a company’s losses in each country or city it operates in, a portfolio of losses subdivided by investment, or claims made by clients to an insurance company. Assuming there’s enough data to assign a distribution to those losses, we examine the Rearrangement Algorithm’s ability to numerically compute the Expected Shortfall and Exponential Premium Principle/Entropic Risk Measure of aggregate losses. A more efficient discretization scheme is introduced and the algorithm is extended to the Entropic Risk Measure which turns out to have a smaller uncertainty spread than the Expected Shortfall at least for the cases that we examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207