Bayesian Estimation of Extreme Quantiles and the Distribution of Exceedances for Measuring Tail Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating extreme quantiles and the number of future exceedances is an important task in financial risk management. More important than estimating the quantile itself is to insure zero coverage error, which implies the quantile estimate should, on average, reflect the desired probability of exceedance. In this research, we show that for unconditional distributions isomorphic to the exponential, a Bayesian quantile estimate results in zero coverage error. This compares to the traditional maximum likelihood method, where the coverage error can be significant under small sample sizes even though the quantile estimate is unbiased. More generally, we prove a sufficient condition for an unbiased quantile estimator to result in coverage error and we show our result holds by virtue of using a Jeffreys prior for the unknown parameters and is independent of the true prior. We derive a new, predictive distribution, and the moments, for the number of quantile exceedances, and highlight its superior performance. We extend our results to the conditional tail of distributions with asymptotic Paretian tails and, in particular, those in the Fréchet maximum domain of attraction which are typically encountered in finance. We illustrate our results using simulations for a variety of light and heavy-tailed distributions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".