IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2409.04412.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Robust Elicitable Functionals

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen E. Miao
  • Silvana M. Pesenti

Abstract

Elicitable functionals and (strictly) consistent scoring functions are of interest due to their utility of determining (uniquely) optimal forecasts, and thus the ability to effectively backtest predictions. However, in practice, assuming that a distribution is correctly specified is too strong a belief to reliably hold. To remediate this, we incorporate a notion of statistical robustness into the framework of elicitable functionals, meaning that our robust functional accounts for "small" misspecifications of a baseline distribution. Specifically, we propose a robustified version of elicitable functionals by using the Kullback-Leibler divergence to quantify potential misspecifications from a baseline distribution. We show that the robust elicitable functionals admit unique solutions lying at the boundary of the uncertainty region, and provide conditions for existence and uniqueness. Since every elicitable functional possesses infinitely many scoring functions, we propose the class of b-homogeneous strictly consistent scoring functions, for which the robust functionals maintain desirable statistical properties. We show the applicability of the robust elicitable functional in several examples: in a reinsurance setting and in robust regression problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen E. Miao & Silvana M. Pesenti, 2024. "Robust Elicitable Functionals," Papers 2409.04412, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2409.04412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.04412
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    2. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    3. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    4. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    5. Cai, Jun & Liu, Fangda & Yin, Mingren, 2024. "Worst-case risk measures of stop-loss and limited loss random variables under distribution uncertainty with applications to robust reinsurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(1), pages 310-326.
    6. Patton, Andrew J., 2011. "Data-based ranking of realised volatility estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 161(2), pages 284-303, April.
    7. Pesenti, Silvana M. & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2019. "Reverse sensitivity testing: What does it take to break the model?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 654-670.
    8. Lassance, Nathan & Vrins, Frédéric, 2023. "Portfolio selection: A target-distribution approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 310(1), pages 302-314.
    9. Fabio Bellini & Valeria Bignozzi, 2015. "On elicitable risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 725-733, May.
    10. Jose Blanchet & Henry Lam & Qihe Tang & Zhongyi Yuan, 2019. "Robust Actuarial Risk Analysis," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 33-63, January.
    11. Paul Glasserman & Xingbo Xu, 2014. "Robust risk measurement and model risk," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 29-58, January.
    12. Wang, Ruodu & Ziegel, Johanna F., 2015. "Elicitable distortion risk measures: A concise proof," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 172-175.
    13. Laurent El Ghaoui & Maksim Oks & Francois Oustry, 2003. "Worst-Case Value-At-Risk and Robust Portfolio Optimization: A Conic Programming Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 543-556, August.
    14. Paul Embrechts & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2015. "Aggregation-robustness and model uncertainty of regulatory risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 763-790, October.
    15. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    16. Embrechts, Paul & Puccetti, Giovanni & Rüschendorf, Ludger, 2013. "Model uncertainty and VaR aggregation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2750-2764.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    2. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    4. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    5. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    6. Tobias Fissler & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang & Linxiao Wei, 2024. "Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures," Papers 2404.14136, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    7. Paul Embrechts & Tiantian Mao & Qiuqi Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2021. "Bayes risk, elicitability, and the Expected Shortfall," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1190-1217, October.
    8. Samuel Solgon Santos & Marcelo Brutti Righi & Eduardo de Oliveira Horta, 2022. "The limitations of comonotonic additive risk measures: a literature review," Papers 2212.13864, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    9. Maziar Sahamkhadam, 2021. "Dynamic copula-based expectile portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 209-223, May.
    10. Liu, Peng & Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Linxiao, 2020. "Is the inf-convolution of law-invariant preferences law-invariant?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 144-154.
    11. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    12. Edgars Jakobsons & Steven Vanduffel, 2015. "Dependence Uncertainty Bounds for the Expectile of a Portfolio," Risks, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, December.
    13. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    14. Mucahit Aygun & Fabio Bellini & Roger J. A. Laeven, 2023. "Elicitability of Return Risk Measures," Papers 2302.13070, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    15. Abbas, Yasser & Daouia, Abdelaati & Nemouchi, Boutheina & Stupfler, Gilles, 2025. "Tail expectile-VaR estimation in the semiparametric Generalized Pareto model," TSE Working Papers 25-1607, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. Mohammedi, Mustapha & Bouzebda, Salim & Laksaci, Ali, 2021. "The consistency and asymptotic normality of the kernel type expectile regression estimator for functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    18. Fissler, Tobias & Pesenti, Silvana M., 2023. "Sensitivity measures based on scoring functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1408-1423.
    19. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Yen H. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2018. "Multinomial VaR backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 393-407.
    20. Del Brio, Esther B. & Mora-Valencia, Andrés & Perote, Javier, 2020. "Risk quantification for commodity ETFs: Backtesting value-at-risk and expected shortfall," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2409.04412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.