MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415962524 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2024.06518

Partial Law Invariance and Risk Measures

2025· article· en· W4415962524 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yi Shen, Zachary Van Oosten, Ruodu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicRepresentation (politics)SophisticationMathematical financeFinancial marketRisk managementDecision theoryBridge (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce partial law invariance, generalizing law invariance, and probabilistic sophistication widely used in decision theory, as well as statistical and financial applications. Partial law invariance may be interpreted as law invariance restricted to events for which there is no model uncertainty, reflecting practical situations in decision theory and financial risk management. We fully characterize partially law-invariant coherent risk measures via a novel representation formula. Strong partial law invariance is defined to bridge the gap between the above characterization and the classic representation formula of Kusuoka. We propose a few classes of new risk measures, including partially law-invariant versions of the expected shortfall and the entropic risk measures, and illustrate their applications in risk assessment under different types of uncertainty. We provide a tractable optimization formula for computing a class of partially law-invariant coherent risk measures and give a numerical example. This paper was accepted by Aurélien Baillon, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grants CRC-2022-00141, RGPIN-2020-04356, and RGPIN-2024-03728]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.06518 .

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207