MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389363251 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.01034

Monotonic mean-deviation risk measures

2023· preprint· en· W4389363251 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xia Han, Ruodu Wang, Qinyu Wu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMonotonic functionMathematicsStandard deviationRate functionConvexityEstimatorCoherent risk measureWeightingStatisticsRisk measureConsistency (knowledge bases)Absolute deviationLarge deviations theoryApplied mathematicsGeneralized meanMathematical analysisDiscrete mathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mean-deviation models, along with the existing theory of coherent risk measures, are well studied in the literature. In this paper, we characterize monotonic mean-deviation (risk) measures from a general mean-deviation model by applying a risk-weighting function to the deviation part. The form is a combination of the deviation-related functional and the expectation, and such measures belong to the class of consistent risk measures. The monotonic mean-deviation measures admit an axiomatic foundation via preference relations. By further assuming the convexity and linearity of the risk-weighting function, the characterizations for convex and coherent risk measures are obtained, giving rise to many new explicit examples of convex and nonconvex consistent risk measures. Further, we specialize in the convex case of the monotonic mean-deviation measure and obtain its dual representation. The worst-case values of the monotonic mean-deviation measures are analyzed under two popular settings of model uncertainty. Further, we establish asymptotic consistency and normality of the natural estimators of the monotonic mean-deviation measures.Finally, the monotonic mean-deviation measures are applied to a problem of portfolio selection using financial data.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.017 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207