The Financial Risk Measurement EVaR Based on DTARCH Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The value at risk based on expectile (EVaR) is a very useful method to measure financial risk, especially in measuring extreme financial risk. The double-threshold autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic (DTARCH) model is a valuable tool in assessing the volatility of a financial asset's return. A significant characteristic of DTARCH models is that their conditional mean and conditional variance functions are both piecewise linear, involving double thresholds. This paper proposes the weighted composite expectile regression (WCER) estimation of the DTARCH model based on expectile regression theory. Therefore, we can use EVaR to predict extreme financial risk, especially when the conditional mean and the conditional variance of asset returns are nonlinear. Unlike the existing papers on DTARCH models, we do not assume that the threshold and delay parameters are known. Using simulation studies, it has been demonstrated that the proposed WCER estimation exhibits adequate and promising performance in finite samples. Finally, the proposed approach is used to analyze the daily Hang Seng Index (HSI) and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SPI).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".