Modeling Risk for CVaR-Based Decisions in Risk Aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring the risk aggregation is an important exercise for any risk bearing carrier. It is not restricted to evaluation of the known portfolio risk position only, and could include complying with regulatory requirements, diversification, etc. The main difficulty of risk aggregation is creating an underlying robust probabilistic model. It is an irrefutable fact that the uncertainty in the individual risks is much lower in its complexity, as compared to modeling the dependence amongst the risks. As a result, it is often reasonable to assume that individual risks are modeled in a robust fashion, while the exact dependence remains unknown, yet some of its traits may be made available due to empirical evidence or “good practice”. Our main contribution is to propose a numerical procedure that enables the identification of the worst possible dependence scenario, when the risk preferences are modeled by the conditional value-at-risk in the presence of dependence uncertainty. For portfolios with two risks, it is known that CVaR ordering coincides with the lower-orthant stochastic ordering of the underlying bivariate distributions. As a by-product of our analysis, we show that no such extensions are possible to higher dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".