MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387737735 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16100450

Derivative of Reduced Cumulative Distribution Function and Applications

2023· article· en· W4387737735 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin Maritato, Stan Uryasev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCumulative distribution functionCVARMathematicsProbability density functionDerivative (finance)Applied mathematicsDistribution (mathematics)Empirical distribution functionInverseSensitivity (control systems)Half-normal distributionFunction (biology)Conditional probability distributionProbability distributionStatisticsMathematical analysisExpected shortfallAsymptotic distributionRisk management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduced cumulative distribution function (rCDF) is the maximal lower bound for the cumulative distribution function (CDF). It is equivalent to the inverse of the conditional value at risk (CVaR), or one minus the buffered probability of exceedance (bPOE). This paper introduces the reduced probability density function (rPDF), the derivative of rCDF. We first explore the relation between rCDF and other risk measures. Then we describe three means of calculating rPDF for a distribution, depending on what is known about the distribution. For functions with a closed-form formula for bPOE, we derive closed-form formulae for rPDF. Further, we describe formulae for rPDF based on a numerical bPOE when there is a closed-form formula for CVaR but no closed-form formula for bPOE. Finally, we give a method for numerically calculating rPDF for an empirical distribution, and compare the results with other methods for known distributions. We conducted a case study and used rPDF for sensitivity analysis and parameter estimation with a method similar to the maximum likelihood method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207