MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415944292 · doi:10.1111/mafi.70016

Elicitability and Identifiability of Tail Risk Measures

2025· article· en· W4415944292 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIdentifiabilityTail riskExpected shortfallQuantileTail dependenceClass (philosophy)Quantile regressionRange (aeronautics)Joint probability distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Tail risk measures are fully determined by the distribution of the underlying loss beyond its quantile at a certain level, with Value‐at‐Risk, Expected Shortfall (ES) and Range Value‐at‐Risk being prime examples. They are induced by law‐based risk measures, called their generators, evaluated on the tail distribution. This paper establishes joint identifiability and elicitability results of tail risk measures together with the corresponding quantile, provided that their generators are identifiable and elicitable, respectively. As an example, we establish the joint identifiability and elicitability of the tail expectile together with the quantile. The corresponding consistent scores constitute a novel class of weighted scores, nesting the known class of scores of Fissler and Ziegel for the ES together with the quantile. For statistical purposes, our results pave the way to easier model fitting for tail risk measures via regression and the generalized method of moments, but also model comparison and model validation in terms of established backtesting procedures.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.321 · 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