A Look at Model Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Commodity Contingent Claims: A Practitioner's Guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model uncertainty in financial markets is prevalent by the very nature of how models are constructed and used by financial practitioners. As such, a proper characterization of model uncertainty should be paramount in the eyes of every practitioner, and furthermore, a proper framework for implementing such a characterization towards financial activities should be implicit. While model uncertainty is acknowledged by practitioners, a cohesive and robust framework for determining a model uncertainty risk measure that is broadly accepted by practitioners is missing. We acknowledge this deficiency and provide a practitioner's guide for evaluating a modern characterization of model uncertainty, specifically that of Li and Kwon, as applied to a subset of derivative related calculations, with the goal of promoting its implementation by practitioners. We promote its implementation by demonstrating the utility and flexibility of such a characterization relative to another modern model uncertainty risk measure, specifically that of Cont.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".