Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".