MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135915587

The Quantitative Risk Management Exercise Book

2020· book· en· W7135915587 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWU Research · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartingale (probability theory)Stylized factValuation (finance)Random variableBondInterest rateExpected shortfallRisk-neutral measure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise 2.6 (VaR and expected shortfall) a) Give mathematically precise definitions of value-at-risk VaR (L) and expected shortfall ES (L) for a random loss L at confidence level (0, 1).b) Explain the relative advantages of each risk measure over the other.Exercise 2.7 (Superadditivity scenarios for VaR) Describe some models for financial losses that can lead to situations where VaR is superadditive.Exercise 2.8 (Additivity for two linearly dependent random variables) Consider an arbitrary random variable X and let Y = aX + b for constants a > 0 and b BasicExercise 2.9 (Risk-neutral valuation for interest-rate derivatives) Consider a two-period model.Denote by r t , t {0, 1}, the simple interest rate from t to t + 1, so that 1 monetary unit invested at t is worth 1 + r t at t + 1. Assume that r 0 is 1.5% and that r 1 takes the values 1% and 2% with probability 1/2.Denote by p(t, T ) the price at t of a zero-coupon bond with maturity T and face value 1.a) Write down p(0, 1) and p(1, 2) for the cases r 1 = 0.01 and r 1 = 0.02.b) Suppose a long zero-coupon bond with maturity T = 2 and face value 1 is traded for 0.969729 at t = 0.In this setup an equivalent martingale measure Q is characterized by the probability q = Q(r 1 = 0.01).Compute q from p(0, 2).c) Apply risk-neutral valuation to price a stylized floor contract which pays an amount of 1 if r 1 < r 0 .Note.In general, a floor contract is an option which provides protection against low interest rates.Exercise 2.10 (Mapping of a stock portfolio affected by exchange rates) Consider a portfolio P consisting of two stocks S t,1 , S t,2 , where S t,1 denotes the value of stock 1 in EUR and S t,2 denotes the value of stock 2 in CHF.Let e CHF t denote the CHF/EUR exchange rate at time t.In other words, 1 CHF is worth e CHF t EUR at t. Furthermore, denote by 1 and 2 the number of shares in stocks 1 and 2 in P, respectively.a) Derive the value V t in EUR of P at time t in terms of the risk factors Z t,j = log S t,j , j {1, 2}, and. What is the corresponding mapping?b) Derive the value V t+1 of P at time t + 1 and the one-period loss L t+1 .c) Derive the linearized one-period loss L t+1 and express it in terms of portfolio weights w 1 , w 2 (the values of each stock investment relative to the value V t of the overall portfolio).

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.023

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 head0.477
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.060 · 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