MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367680256 · doi:10.1017/asb.2023.17

Estimating the VaR-induced Euler allocation rule

2023· article· en· W4367680256 on OpenAlexaff
Nadezhda Gribkova, Jianxi Su, Ričardas Zitikis

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorConditional expectationConsistency (knowledge bases)EconometricsFunction (biology)Statistical inferenceEuler's formulaCumulative distribution functionQuantileAsymptotic distributionMathematicsQuantile regressionComputer scienceApplied mathematicsStatisticsProbability density functionDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The prominence of the Euler allocation rule (EAR) is rooted in the fact that it is the only return on risk-adjusted capital (RORAC) compatible capital allocation rule. When the total regulatory capital is set using the value-at-risk (VaR), the EAR becomes – using a statistical term – the quantile-regression (QR) function. Although the cumulative QR function (i.e., an integral of the QR function) has received considerable attention in the literature, a fully developed statistical inference theory for the QR function itself has been elusive. In the present paper, we develop such a theory based on an empirical QR estimator, for which we establish consistency, asymptotic normality, and standard error estimation. This makes the herein developed results readily applicable in practice, thus facilitating decision making within the RORAC paradigm, conditional mean risk sharing, and current regulatory frameworks.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207