MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sequential Nested Simulation for Estimating Expected Shortfall

2022· article· en· W4317792921 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExpected shortfallPortfolioMeasure (data warehouse)Set (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationEconometricsFinanceData miningMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expected shortfall (ES) is a widely used tail risk measure in the financial industry. Estimating the ES of a financial portfolio usually requires nested simulation, which is computationally burdensome. In a standard nested simulation procedure, one first simulates a set of plausible evolution of underlying risk factors, or the scenarios. Then, conditional on each outer scenarios, inner simulations are run to evaluate the financial positions in that scenario. In this work, we propose a sequential nested simulation procedure that dynamically allocates a fixed simulation budget to accurately estimate the expected shortfall. The goal is to gradually concentrate the simulation budget on the tail scenarios with the largest losses, as these scenarios are most relevant in ES estimation. Our numerical experiments show that, with the same simulation budget, the proposed procedure significantly improves the estimation accuracy of ES compared to a standard nested simulation procedure.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.209 · 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