Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Diversification quotient based on expectiles

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a simple ratio formula for the expectile-based diversification quotient and proves that it can be optimized by linear programming.

desk verdict Clean expectile-based DQ formulas and a useful LP optimization story, but the headline pseudo-convexity theorem has an unstated differentiability assumption that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14646 v2 pith:J542UC63 submitted 2024-11-22 q-fin.PM

Xia Han , Liyuan Lin , Hao Wang , Ruodu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.PM MSC 91G1091G7062P05
keywords diversificationquotientexpectilesOmegaratioportfolioselectionpseudo-convexitycoherentriskmeasuresregularvariationlinearprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that expectiles, the asymmetric-least-squares risk measures, give a better-behaved diversification quotient than Value-at-Risk or Expected Shortfall. For a loss vector, the expectile-based DQ can be written as $1/\alpha$ times the ratio of the expected positive deviation to the expected absolute deviation of the pooled loss from the sum of individual expectiles (Theorem 1). This makes it a close relative of the $\Omega$ ratio with an internally chosen threshold, and it keeps working when $\alpha$ is smaller than $1/N$, because expectiles are estimated from the whole sample rather than from scarce tail order statistics. The paper proves pseudo-convexity in portfolio weights, which guarantees that local optima are global and gradient methods apply, and it provides linear-programming formulations for real-data portfolio selection. The upshot is a practical, stable diversification index that preserves the axiomatic and computational advantages of DQ based on ES.

What carries the argument

The engine is the expectile $\mathrm{ex}_\alpha(X)$, the unique $t$ solving $(1-\alpha)E[(X-t)_+] = \alpha E[(X-t)_-]$, equivalently the minimizer of an asymmetric quadratic loss. Because expectiles are strictly decreasing in the level $\alpha$ for non-degenerate losses, the equation $\mathrm{ex}_{c\alpha}(S) = \sum_i \mathrm{ex}_\alpha(X_i)$ has a unique solution for $c$, and that $c$ is the DQ. The alternative formula in Theorem 1 follows from the expectile acceptance set and the identity $E[(X-y)_-] = yF_X(y) - \int_{-\infty}^y x\,dF_X(x)$, which also yields the distributional form $1 - \tilde{F}_S(t)/\alpha$. The pseudo-convexity proof uses the representation of the DQ as a ratio of an upper expectation to a denominator involving $E[w^\top(X - x^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha)]$, whose negativity for $\alpha<1/2$ does the key sign work in the gradient inequality.

What would settle it

Compute the expectile-based DQ on a fine grid of weights for a small discrete loss model, for instance two independent Bernoulli losses with $p=0.1$ as in Example 1, and test whether any local minimum above the global minimum appears at a weight where $P(w^\top(X-x^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha)=0)>0$; finding one would show Theorem 2 needs the differentiability condition, while failing to find one would support a subgradient-friendly version.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the diversification quotient based on expectiles, $\mathrm{DQ}^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha(X) = \alpha^*/\alpha$ with $\alpha^*$ the smallest level at which the aggregate expectile drops to the sum of individual expectiles, is not just another tail-based index. Theorem 1 rewrites it as $\mathrm{DQ}^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha(X) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{E[(S-t)_+]}{E[|S-t|]}$, where $S=\sum_i X_i$ and $t=\sum_i \mathrm{ex}_\alpha(X_i)$, so the index inherits a direct reading as an $\Omega$ ratio at an endogenously chosen threshold. The authors then show that $w \mapsto \mathrm{DQ}^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha(w\odot X)$ is pseudo-convex on the positive orthant (Theorem 2), so local minima are global, and that the empirical portfolio problem can be recast as a linear program, avoiding the degeneracy that makes empirical VaR- and ES-based DQ identically zero when $\alpha<1/N$. Explicit formulas are also derived for elliptical and multivariate regularly varying models, with the iid regularly varying tail limit $n^{1-\gamma}$ matching the corresponding VaR and ES limits.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the expectile-based DQ is pseudo-convex in portfolio weights relies on the objective being differentiable, which holds only when the portfolio loss never lands exactly on the expectile threshold; the paper states the theorem without adding this condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ratio formula means expectile-based DQ can be estimated from a single pooled-loss distribution plus the sum of individual expectiles, so it does not collapse to zero when $\alpha<1/N$ as empirical VaR- and ES-based DQ do.
  • Minimizing DQ over portfolio weights is equivalent to the fractional program in (15) and, empirically, to the linear program in (17), so globally optimal diversification can be found with standard LP solvers.
  • Pseudo-convexity implies every local minimum of $w \mapsto \mathrm{DQ}^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha(w\odot X)$ on the positive orthant is a global minimum, making gradient-descent portfolio selection reliable.
  • Under elliptical models, minimizing the expectile DQ reduces to maximizing $w^\top\sigma/\sqrt{w^\top\Sigma w}$, the same objective as maximum diversification, and for iid regularly varying tails the limiting DQ is $n^{1-\gamma}$.
  • The symmetry relation $\alpha \mathrm{DQ}^{\mathrm{ex}}_\alpha(X) + (1-\alpha)\mathrm{DQ}^{\mathrm{ex}}_{1-\alpha}(-X) = 1$ allows computation of the index at high levels from low levels directly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The endogenous threshold $t=\sum_i \mathrm{ex}_\alpha(X_i)$ suggests a natural remedy for the known sensitivity of Omega-ratio portfolio optimization to the externally chosen threshold: a testable extension is whether DQ-selected portfolios are less sensitive to $\alpha$ than Omega-ratio portfolios are to $t$ over a grid of thresholds.
  • Because expectiles are the only coherent and elicitable risk measures, the same objectivity that makes them useful for forecast comparison may carry over to DQ estimation; one could test whether DQ-ex portfolio weights are more stable across resamples than DQ-ES weights when the sample size is just above $1/\alpha$.
  • A natural follow-up, mentioned by the authors as future work, is a distributionally robust version of DQ-ex optimization analogous to worst-case Omega ratio, which would let the index be used under model uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the diversification quotient (DQ) based on expectiles. After recalling the DQ construction and basic expectile properties, it derives an alternative closed-form formula DQ_ex^alpha(X) = (1/alpha) E[(S-t)_+]/E[|S-t|] with S = sum X_i and t = sum ex_alpha(X_i), and links this to the Omega ratio. The paper then establishes structural properties (range [0,1], uniqueness of the implied adjustment level, vanishing for large independent portfolios), claims pseudo-convexity of the DQ as a function of portfolio weights, and gives a linear-programming reformulation of the empirical portfolio-selection problem. Explicit limit and closed-form results are derived for elliptical and multivariate regularly varying models, and numerical illustrations compare expectile-based DQ portfolios with VaR/ES-based DQ and Omega-ratio portfolios.

Significance. If the pseudo-convexity gap identified below is repaired, the paper makes a useful contribution. The expectile-based DQ is a natural middle ground between VaR/ES DQ and Omega-ratio methods: Theorem 1 gives a clean and self-contained formula, the LP formulation in (17) is concrete and implementable, and Remark 4 correctly documents a small-sample degeneracy of VaR/ES DQ that expectile DQ avoids. The elliptical formula in Proposition 6 and the MRV limit in Proposition 8 are also valuable and appear derivable correctly. The main reservation is Theorem 2, which is advertised as a key advantage but is not established as stated; this is a local and plausibly repairable gap rather than a flaw in the paper's remaining contributions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Appendix A, Theorem 2] Theorem 2 is not established as stated. The proof in Appendix A differentiates f(w) in (23) using the identity d/dw_i E[(w^T(X-x_ex^alpha))_+] = E[(X_i - ex_alpha(X_i)) 1_{w^T(X-x_ex^alpha)>0}]. This identity is valid only when P(w^T(X-x_ex^alpha)=0)=0, and the nonatomicity assumption on (Omega, F, P) does not imply this for every w. The paper's own Example 1 uses iid Bernoulli components; for n=2 one can choose positive weights satisfying w_1(1-ex_alpha(X)) = w_2 ex_alpha(X), in which case the outcome (1,0) has positive probability and lies on the event w^T(X-x_ex^alpha)=0. At such w the function f is not differentiable. Since the paper's definition of pseudo-convexity in (14) requires differentiability on the open domain (0,infinity)^n, the theorem as written is not valid. This is a load-bearing issue because pseudo-convexity is advertised in the abstract and introduction as a distinguishing advantage. The gap is likely repairable by adding an explicit no-atom condition on all relevant linear combinations w^T(X-x_ex^alpha), by restricting the claim to points of differentiability, or by proving pseudo-convexity in a nonsmooth (Clarke subgradient) sense; I recommend the authors make one of these repairs and restate Theorem 2 accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, Remark 2] The displayed relation DQ_ex^alpha(X) = (1/alpha)(1 + 1/Omega_{S_X}(sum_i ex_alpha(X_i))) is algebraically inverted. From (6) and (9), DQ = (1/alpha) Omega/(1+Omega) = 1/[alpha(1+1/Omega)]. Please correct this.
  2. [Section 3, Theorem 1] The formula (6) involves the denominator E[|S-t|], which is zero when S=t almost surely. The paper later treats that case as DQ=0 in Proposition 1(ii); please add an explicit convention (e.g., 0/0:=0) or exclude the degenerate case in Theorem 1.
  3. [Appendix A, proof of Proposition 2(ii)] In the last line of the proof, "DQ_ES^alpha(-X)" should be "DQ_ex_{1-alpha}(-X)".
  4. [Section 5.1, Proposition 6] The final sentence of Proposition 6 says "together with (10), we have DQ_ES^alpha(X)=1"; this should refer to DQ based on expectiles, not ES.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and OCR artifacts: "gridient descent" should be "gradient descent", "Sharp ratio" should be "Sharpe ratio", "commendation" in Section 7 should likely be "conclusion", and the proof of Proposition 3 contains an extra parenthesis after Rueschendorf. Please proofread the final version.
  6. [Section 6.1 / Figure 2] The caption of Figure 2 says the empirical value is "calculated based on 49 simulated data of X"; please clarify the sample size and describe exactly how the empirical DQ is estimated from those 49 points, since that detail is important for the small-sample claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the expectile-DQ derivations are self-contained reductions from the DQ definition and standard expectile properties; prior same-author work is used only as a definitional and comparative backdrop, not as a substitute for the new results.

full rationale

The paper starts from Definition 2, which is the Han et al. (2024) DQ definition instantiated with expectiles; this is an input, not a conclusion. Theorem 1 derives the ratio formula from the expectile first-order condition (2) and the acceptance set (4), not from the theorem being proved. Theorem 2 is an analytic derivation using the gradient of the ratio in (23); although the proof omits a differentiability condition (P(w^T(X-x_ex^alpha)=0)=0), that is a regularity gap rather than circularity, since no fitted parameter and no prior same-author theorem forces the pseudo-convexity conclusion. Proposition 8 reduces the expectile limit to the VaR-DQ limit via the externally established ratio ex_alpha/VaR_alpha converging to (gamma-1)^(-1/gamma), and then re-proves the step separately. The empirical sections compare DQ-ex against VaR/ES/Omega benchmarks on rolling out-of-sample windows; the small-sample non-degeneracy claim is a consequence of strict monotonicity of empirical expectiles, not a fitted input. The self-references (Han et al. 2023, 2024) supply the general DQ framework, quasi-convexity of any coherent DQ, and VaR/ES analogues; they do not contain the expectile-specific Theorem 1 or Theorem 2, so the central claims have independent mathematical content. A separate correctness concern exists: Theorem 2's proof differentiates E[(w^TZ)_+] via d/dw_i E[(w^TZ)_+] = E[Z_i 1_{w^TZ>0}], which requires P(w^TZ=0)=0; the non-atomicity of the underlying probability space does not guarantee this for all w, and Example 1's Bernoulli components indeed create atoms for some weights. This is a proof gap, not a circular reduction, and it does not affect the score here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the DQ definition from Han et al. (2024) and on standard expectile theory (coherence for alpha<1/2, elicitability, L1-continuity). No free parameters are fitted to data; the risk level alpha is an input chosen by the user. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Non-atomic probability space and L1 losses
    Section 2 sets X in L1 on a non-atomic space; used in all proofs.
  • domain assumption Expectiles indexed by alpha in (0,1/2) are coherent risk measures
    Used throughout; follows from Bellini et al. (2014) and is cited in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The DQ definition of Han et al. (2024) is accepted
    Definition 1 in Section 2 reproduces this definition; all subsequent results build on it.
  • domain assumption The empirical estimator of expectiles is consistent
    Assumed for the empirical analysis in Sections 4.2 and 6, citing Krätschmer and Zähle (2017) and Daouia et al. (2019).
  • domain assumption Elliptical and multivariate regularly varying models are appropriate for the explicit formulas
    Section 5 assumes X follows an elliptical distribution or MRV_gamma(Psi) with gamma > 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diversification quotient based on expectiles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J542UC63

@misc{pith2026241114646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diversification quotient based on expectiles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J542UC63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14646}
}
read the original abstract

A diversification quotient (DQ) quantifies diversification in stochastic portfolio models based on a family of risk measures. We study DQ based on expectiles, offering a useful alternative to conventional risk measures such as Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES). The expectile-based DQ admits simple formulas and has a natural connection to the Omega ratio. Moreover, the expectile-based DQ is not affected by small-sample issues faced by VaR-based or ES-based DQ due to the scarcity of tail data. The expectile-based DQ exhibits pseudo-convexity in portfolio weights, allowing gradient descent algorithms for portfolio selection. We show that the corresponding optimization problem can be efficiently solved using linear programming techniques in real-data applications. Explicit formulas for DQ based on expectiles are also derived for elliptical and multivariate regularly varying distribution models. Our findings enhance the understanding of the DQ's role in financial risk management and highlight its potential to improve portfolio construction strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wealth processes for portfolios maximizing Omgea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Empirical VS Real DQVaR α , DQES α and DQex α for X ∼ N(0, Σ) and α = 0.02 where Σ = (σ)ij with σii = 1 and σij = r for i 6= j ∈ [5]; the empirical value is the mean of 1000 sample estimates which is calculated based on 49 simulated data of X. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Correlation coefficient (r) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 DQ based on VaR 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Correlation coefficient (r) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The values of DQ when n = 2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.1 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The values of DQ when n = 10 0 (see Remark 4 in Section 4). In contrast, expectiles allow for the use of a broader dataset, yielding more stable results when we apply it to real data. 4 Portfolio selection In this section, we analyze the portfolio selection problem for…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The empirical version of optimization problem (16) is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: DQex α (X) for α ∈ (0, 0.5). 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 In the next example, we show that the performance of DQs is consistent across different classes of risk measures, including VaR, ES, and expectiles. Example 3. Let X ∼ t(ν, µ, Σ), where Σ = (σij…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DQs based on expectiles, ES and VaR for ν ∈ (1, 10). 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Proposition 7. Suppose that X ∼ En(µ, Σ, τ). We have, for α ∈ (0, 1/2), DQex α (w ⊙ X) = E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DQs based on expectiles, ES and VaR with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Wealth processes for portfolios, 40 stocks, Jan 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Wealth processes for portfolios, 40 stocks, Jan 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Wealth processes for portfolios, 40 stocks, Jan 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Heath, D

    Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M. and Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203--228

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    and Balb\'as, R

    Balb\'as, A., Balb\'as, B. and Balb\'as, R. (2021). Omega ratio optimization with actuarial and financial applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 292 (1), 376--387

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk

    BCBS (2019). Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk. February 2019. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Basel: Bank for International Settlements, Document d457

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    and Bernardino, D.E

    Bellini, F. and Bernardino, D.E. (2017). Risk management with expectile. The European Journal of Finance, 23(6), 487--506

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    and Gianin, E.R

    Bellini, F., Klar, B., M\"uller, A. and Gianin, E.R. (2014). Generalized quantiles as risk measures. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 54(1), 41--48

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Disappointment concordance and duet expectiles

    Bellini, F., Mao, T., Wang, R. and Wu, Q. (2024). Disappointment concordance and duet expectiles. arXiv: 2404.17751

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Bernardo, A. E. and Ledoit, O. (2000). Gain, loss, and asset pricing. Journal of Political Economy, 108(1), 144--172

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    and Ye, J

    Bernard, C., Vanduffel, S. and Ye, J. (2019). Optimal strategies under Omega ratio. European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2), 755--767

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    and Wang, R

    Bignozzi, V., Mao, T., Wang, B. and Wang, R. (2016). Diversification limit of quantiles under dependence uncertainty. Extremes, 19(2), 143--170

    2016

  2. [10]

    and Vandenberghe, L

    Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press

    2004

  3. [11]

    and Weng, C

    Cai, J. and Weng, C. (2016). Optimal reinsurance with expectile. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2016(7), 624--645

    2016

  4. [12]

    and Madan, D

    Cherny, A. and Madan, D. (2009). New measures for performance evaluation. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(7), 2571--2606

    2009

  5. [13]

    and Coignard, Y

    Choueifaty, Y. and Coignard, Y. (2008). Toward maximum diversification. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 35(1), 40--51

    2008

  6. [14]

    S., Yang, F

    Cui, H., Tan, K. S., Yang, F. and Zhou, C. (2022) Asymptotic analysis of portfolio diversification. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 106, 302--325

    2022

  7. [15]

    and Stupfler, G

    Daouia, A., Girard, S. and Stupfler, G. (2019). Extreme M-quantiles as risk measures: From L^1 to L^p optimization. Bernoulli, 25, 264--309

    2019

  8. [16]

    Durrett, R. (2019). Probability: Theory and Examples (Vol. 49). Cambridge University Press

    2019

  9. [17]

    and Kaufmann, R

    Embrechts, P., Furrer, H. and Kaufmann, R. (2009). Different kinds of risk. In Handbook of Financial Time Series (Eds. Mikosch, T. et al.), 729--751. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    2009

  10. [18]

    and W \"u thrich, M

    Embrechts, P., Lambrigger, D. and W \"u thrich, M. (2009). Multivariate extremes and the aggregation of dependent risks: Examples and counter-examples. Extremes , 12(2), 107--127

    2009

  11. [19]

    and Wang, R

    Embrechts, P., Liu, H. and Wang, R. (2018). Quantile-based risk sharing. Operations Research, 66(4), 936--949

    2018

  12. [20]

    Embrechts, P., Puccetti, G., R\"uschendorf, L., Wang, R., and Beleraj, A. (2014). An Academic Response to Basel 3.5. Risks, 2(1),25--48

    2014

  13. [21]

    and Wang, R

    Embrechts, P., Wang, B. and Wang, R. (2015). Aggregation-robustness and model uncertainty of regulatory risk measures. Finance and Stochastics , 19(4), 763--790

    2015

  14. [22]

    and Schied, A

    F\"ollmer, H. and Schied, A. (2016). Stochastic Finance. An Introduction in Discrete Time. Fourth Edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    2016

  15. [23]

    Frongillo, R. M. and Kash, I. A. (2021). Elicitation complexity of statistical properties. Biometrika, 108(4), 857--879

    2021

  16. [24]

    Gneiting, T. (2011). Making and evaluating point forecast. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494), 746--762

    2011

  17. [25]

    and Speranza, M

    Guastaroba, G., Mansini, R., Ogryczak, W. and Speranza, M. G. (2016). Linear programming models based on omega ratio for the enhanced index tracking problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 251(3), 938--956

    2016

  18. [26]

    Gul, T. (1991). A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica, 59(3), 667--686

    1991

  19. [27]

    and Wang, R

    Han, X., Lin, L. and Wang, R. (2023). Diversification quotients based on VaR and ES. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 113, 185--197

    2023

  20. [28]

    and Wang, R

    Han, X., Lin, L. and Wang, R. (2024). Diversification quotients: Quantifying diversification via risk measures. Management Science, forthcoming

    2024

  21. [29]

    and Mao, T

    Hu, Y., Chen, Y. and Mao, T. (2024). An extreme worst-case risk measure by expectile. Advances in Applied Probability, 1--20

    2024

  22. [30]

    and R\" u schendorf, L

    Kaina, M. and R\" u schendorf, L. (2009). On convex risk measures on L^p -spaces. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 69, 475--495

    2009

  23. [31]

    and Rustem, B

    Kapsos, M., Christofides, N. and Rustem, B. (2014b). Worst-case robust Omega ratio. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(2), 499--507

    2014

  24. [32]

    and Rustem, B

    Kapsos, M., Zymler, S., Christofides, N. and Rustem, B. (2014a). Optimizing the Omega ratio using linear programming. Journal of Computational Finance, 17(4), 49--57

    2014

  25. [33]

    and Shadwick, W

    Keating, C. and Shadwick, W. (2002). A universal performance measure. Journal of Performance Measurement, Spring Issue, 59--84

    2002

  26. [34]

    atschmer, V. and Z\

    Kr\"atschmer, V. and Z\"ahle, H. (2017). Statistical inference for expectile‐based risk measures. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 44(2), 425--454

    2017

  27. [35]

    and Embrechts, P

    Mainik, G. and Embrechts, P. (2013). Diversification in heavy-tailed portfolios: Properties and pitfalls. Annals of Actuarial Science, 7(1), 26--45

    2013

  28. [36]

    and R\"uschendorf, L (2010)

    Mainik, G. and R\"uschendorf, L (2010). On optimal portfolio diversification with respect to extreme risks. Finance and Stochastics, 14(4), 593--623

    2010

  29. [37]

    Mangasarian, O. L. (1975). Pseudo-convex functions. In Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance (pp. 23--32). Academic Press

    1975

  30. [38]

    and Yang, F

    Mao, T. and Yang, F. (2015). Risk concentration based on expectile for extreme risks under FGM copula. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64, 429--439

    2015

  31. [39]

    and Penev, S

    Matmoura, Y. and Penev, S. (2013). Multistage optimization of option portfolio using higher order coherent risk measures. European Journal of Operational Research, 227(1), 190--198

    2013

  32. [40]

    J., Frey, R

    McNeil, A. J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P. (2015). Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools. Revised Edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

    2015

  33. [41]

    Newey, W.K., and Powell, J.L. (1987). Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing. Econometrica, 55(4), 819-–847

    1987

  34. [42]

    ut\"unc\

    P nar, M. C . and T\"ut\"unc\"u, R. H. (2005). Robust profit opportunities in risky financial portfolios. Operations Research Letters, 33(4), 331--340

    2005

  35. [43]

    R \"u schendorf, L. (2013). Mathematical Risk Analysis. Dependence, Risk Bounds, Optimal Allocations and Portfolios . Springer, Heidelberg

    2013

  36. [44]

    and Mehra, A

    Sharma, A. and Mehra, A. (2017). Extended omega ratio optimization for risk‐averse investors. International Transactions in Operational Research, 24(3), 485--506

    2017

  37. [45]

    and Mehra, A

    Sharma, A., Utz, S. and Mehra, A. (2017). Omega-CVaR portfolio optimization and its worst case analysis. OR Spectrum, 39(2), 505--539

    2017

  38. [46]

    Tasche, D. (2007). Capital allocation to business units and sub-portfolios: The Euler principle. arXiv: 0708.2542

    2007 arXiv

  39. [47]

    and Wang, R

    Wang, B. and Wang, R. (2016). Joint mixability. Mathematics of Operations Research, 41(3), 808--826

    2016

  40. [48]

    and Zhu, X

    Xie, X., Liu, H., Mao, T. and Zhu, X. B. (2023). Distributionally robust reinsurance with expectile. ASTIN Bulletin, 53(1), 129--148

    2023

  41. [49]

    Ziegel, J. F. (2016). Coherence and elicitability. Mathematical Finance, 26(4), 901--918

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.