MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387576598 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12693

Estimation of the adjusted standard‐deviatile for extreme risks

2023· article· en· W4387576598 on OpenAlexafffund
Haoyu Chen, Tiantian Mao, Fan Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Anhui ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorIndependent and identically distributed random variablesExtreme value theoryAsymptotic distributionStatisticsSeries (stratigraphy)Asymptotic analysisBayes' theoremMeasure (data warehouse)Risk measureEdgeworth seriesEconometricsApplied mathematicsBayesian probabilityRandom variableComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we modify the Bayes risk for the expectile, the so‐called variantile risk measure, to better capture extreme risks. The modified risk measure is called the adjusted standard‐deviatile. First, we derive the asymptotic expansions of the adjusted standard‐deviatile. Next, based on the first‐order asymptotic expansion, we propose two efficient estimation methods for the adjusted standard‐deviatile at intermediate and extreme levels. By using techniques from extreme value theory, the asymptotic normality is proved for both estimators for independent and identically distributed observations and for ‐mixing time series, respectively. Simulations and real data applications are conducted to examine the performance of the proposed estimators.

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)0.054
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207