An assessment of model risk in pricing wind derivatives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wind derivatives are financial instruments designed to mitigate losses caused by adverse wind conditions. With the rapid growth of wind power capacity due to efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the demand for wind derivatives to manage uncertainty in wind power production is expected to increase. However, existing wind derivative literature often assumes normally distributed wind speed, despite the presence of skewness and leptokurtosis in historical wind speed data. This paper investigates how the misspecification of wind speed models affects wind derivative prices and proposes the use of the generalized hyperbolic distribution to account for non-normality. The study develops risk-neutral approaches for pricing wind derivatives using the conditional Esscher transform, which can accommodate stochastic processes with any distribution, provided the moment-generating function exists. The analysis demonstrates that model risk varies depending on the choice of the underlying index and the derivative’s payoff structure. Therefore, caution should be exercised when choosing wind speed models. Essentially, model risk cannot be ignored in pricing wind speed derivatives.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it