IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2509.18394.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Artificial Intelligence Value at Risk Approach: Metrics and Models

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Enriquez Alvarez

Abstract

Artificial intelligence risks are multidimensional in nature, as the same risk scenarios may have legal, operational, and financial risk dimensions. With the emergence of new AI regulations, the state of the art of artificial intelligence risk management seems to be highly immature due to upcoming AI regulations. Despite the appearance of several methodologies and generic criteria, it is rare to find guidelines with real implementation value, considering that the most important issue is customizing artificial intelligence risk metrics and risk models for specific AI risk scenarios. Furthermore, the financial departments, legal departments and Government Risk Compliance teams seem to remain unaware of many technical aspects of AI systems, in which data scientists and AI engineers emerge as the most appropriate implementers. It is crucial to decompose the problem of artificial intelligence risk in several dimensions: data protection, fairness, accuracy, robustness, and information security. Consequently, the main task is developing adequate metrics and risk models that manage to reduce uncertainty for decision-making in order to take informed decisions concerning the risk management of AI systems. The purpose of this paper is to orientate AI stakeholders about the depths of AI risk management. Although it is not extremely technical, it requires a basic knowledge of risk management, quantifying uncertainty, the FAIR model, machine learning, large language models and AI context engineering. The examples presented pretend to be very basic and understandable, providing simple ideas that can be developed regarding specific AI customized environments. There are many issues to solve in AI risk management, and this paper will present a holistic overview of the inter-dependencies of AI risks, and how to model them together, within risk scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Enriquez Alvarez, 2025. "An Artificial Intelligence Value at Risk Approach: Metrics and Models," Papers 2509.18394, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.18394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.18394
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2002. "Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1443-1471, July.
    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. Cui, Xueting & Zhu, Shushang & Sun, Xiaoling & Li, Duan, 2013. "Nonlinear portfolio selection using approximate parametric Value-at-Risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2124-2139.
    2. Zhi Chen & Melvyn Sim & Huan Xu, 2019. "Distributionally Robust Optimization with Infinitely Constrained Ambiguity Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1328-1344, September.
    3. Dominique Guégan & Wayne Tarrant, 2012. "On the necessity of five risk measures," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 533-552, November.
    4. Giovanni Masala & Filippo Petroni, 2023. "Drawdown risk measures for asset portfolios with high frequency data," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 265-289, June.
    5. Ke Zhou & Jiangjun Gao & Duan Li & Xiangyu Cui, 2017. "Dynamic mean–VaR portfolio selection in continuous time," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1631-1643, October.
    6. Malavasi, Matteo & Ortobelli Lozza, Sergio & Trück, Stefan, 2021. "Second order of stochastic dominance efficiency vs mean variance efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(3), pages 1192-1206.
    7. Rostagno, Luciano Martin, 2005. "Empirical tests of parametric and non-parametric Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) measures for the Brazilian stock market index," ISU General Staff Papers 2005010108000021878, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Alois Pichler, 2013. "Premiums And Reserves, Adjusted By Distortions," Papers 1304.0490, arXiv.org.
    9. Alexander, Gordon J. & Baptista, Alexandre M. & Yan, Shu, 2013. "A comparison of the original and revised Basel market risk frameworks for regulating bank capital," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 249-268.
    10. David Neděla & Sergio Ortobelli & Tomáš Tichý, 2024. "Mean–variance vs trend–risk portfolio selection," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(7), pages 2047-2078, July.
    11. Rockafellar, R.T. & Royset, J.O., 2010. "On buffered failure probability in design and optimization of structures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 499-510.
    12. Li, Bo & Hou, Peng-Wen & Chen, Ping & Li, Qing-Hua, 2016. "Pricing strategy and coordination in a dual channel supply chain with a risk-averse retailer," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 154-168.
    13. Jin, Xin & Zhang, Zhaolong & Shi, Xiaoqiang & Ju, Wenbin, 2014. "A review on wind power industry and corresponding insurance market in China: Current status and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1069-1082.
    14. Alexander, Gordon J. & Baptista, Alexandre M. & Yan, Shu, 2012. "When more is less: Using multiple constraints to reduce tail risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 2693-2716.
    15. Yao, Yinhong & Chen, Xiuwen & Chen, Zhensong, 2025. "Portfolio tail risk forecasting for international financial assets: A GARCH-MIDAS-R-Vine copula model," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    16. Kull, Andreas, 2009. "Sharing Risk – An Economic Perspective," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 591-613, November.
    17. Mínguez, R. & Conejo, A.J. & García-Bertrand, R., 2011. "Reliability and decomposition techniques to solve certain class of stochastic programming problems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 314-323.
    18. Fattahi, Mohammad & Keyvanshokooh, Esmaeil & Kannan, Devika & Govindan, Kannan, 2023. "Resource planning strategies for healthcare systems during a pandemic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(1), pages 192-206.
    19. Jia Liu & Cuixia Li, 2023. "Dynamic Game Analysis on Cooperative Advertising Strategy in a Manufacturer-Led Supply Chain with Risk Aversion," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, January.
    20. Nan Zhang & Heng Xu, 2024. "Fairness of Ratemaking for Catastrophe Insurance: Lessons from Machine Learning," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 469-488, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:2509.18394. 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.