IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2203.00460.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sensitivity Measures Based on Scoring Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Fissler
  • Silvana M. Pesenti

Abstract

We propose a holistic framework for constructing sensitivity measures for any elicitable functional $T$ of a response variable. The sensitivity measures, termed score-based sensitivities, are constructed via scoring functions that are (strictly) consistent for $T$. These score-based sensitivities quantify the relative improvement in predictive accuracy when available information, e.g., from explanatory variables, is used ideally. We establish intuitive and desirable properties of these sensitivities and discuss advantageous choices of scoring functions leading to scale-invariant sensitivities. Since elicitable functionals typically possess rich classes of (strictly) consistent scoring functions, we demonstrate how Murphy diagrams can provide a picture of all score-based sensitivity measures. We discuss the family of score-based sensitivities for the mean functional (of which the Sobol indices are a special case) and risk functionals such as Value-at-Risk, and the pair Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall. The sensitivity measures are illustrated using numerous examples, including the Ishigami--Homma test function. In a simulation study, estimation of score-based sensitivities for a non-linear insurance portfolio is performed using neural nets.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Fissler & Silvana M. Pesenti, 2022. "Sensitivity Measures Based on Scoring Functions," Papers 2203.00460, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.00460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.00460
    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. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    4. 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.
    5. Acerbi, Carlo, 2002. "Spectral measures of risk: A coherent representation of subjective risk aversion," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1505-1518, July.
    6. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2017. "Value of Information," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Sensitivity Analysis, chapter 0, pages 93-100, Springer.
    7. Borgonovo, E., 2007. "A new uncertainty importance measure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 771-784.
    8. Jean-Claude Fort & Thierry Klein & Nabil Rachdi, 2016. "New sensitivity analysis subordinated to a contrast," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(15), pages 4349-4364, August.
    9. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 593-606.
    10. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    11. Marrel, Amandine & Iooss, Bertrand & Laurent, Béatrice & Roustant, Olivier, 2009. "Calculations of Sobol indices for the Gaussian process metamodel," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 742-751.
    12. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    13. Silvana M. Pesenti, 2021. "Reverse Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Modelling," Papers 2107.01065, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    14. Gerber, Hans U., 1974. "On Additive Premium Calculation Principles," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 215-222, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Hazen, Gordon B. & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Plischke, Elmar, 2021. "Probabilistic sensitivity measures as information value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 595-610.
    17. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    18. C. Heinrich, 2014. "The mode functional is not elicitable," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 101(1), pages 245-251.
    19. Manel Baucells & Emanuele Borgonovo, 2013. "Invariant Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2536-2549, November.
    20. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis and the Expected Value of Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 95-109, January.
    21. Tobias Fissler & Hajo Holzmann, 2022. "Measurability of functionals and of ideal point forecasts," Papers 2203.08635, arXiv.org.
    22. Andreas Tsanakas & Pietro Millossovich, 2016. "Sensitivity Analysis Using Risk Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 30-48, January.
    23. Marc-Oliver Pohle, 2020. "The Murphy Decomposition and the Calibration-Resolution Principle: A New Perspective on Forecast Evaluation," Papers 2005.01835, arXiv.org.
    24. Maume-Deschamps, Véronique & Niang, Ibrahima, 2018. "Estimation of quantile oriented sensitivity indices," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 122-127.
    25. Hajo Holzmann & Matthias Eulert, 2014. "The role of the information set for forecasting - with applications to risk management," Papers 1404.7653, arXiv.org.
    26. Saltelli A. & Tarantola S., 2002. "On the Relative Importance of Input Factors in Mathematical Models: Safety Assessment for Nuclear Waste Disposal," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 702-709, September.
    27. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Plischke, Elmar, 2016. "Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 869-887.
    28. Fabian Krüger & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2021. "Generic Conditions for Forecast Dominance," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 972-983, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tobias Fissler & Hajo Holzmann, 2022. "Measurability of functionals and of ideal point forecasts," Papers 2203.08635, arXiv.org.
    2. Anthony Coache & Sebastian Jaimungal & 'Alvaro Cartea, 2022. "Conditionally Elicitable Dynamic Risk Measures for Deep Reinforcement Learning," Papers 2206.14666, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    3. Silvana M. Pesenti, 2022. "Reverse Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Modelling," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, July.

    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 & Pesenti, Silvana M., 2023. "Sensitivity measures based on scoring functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1408-1423.
    2. 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.
    3. Tobias Fissler & Hajo Holzmann, 2022. "Measurability of functionals and of ideal point forecasts," Papers 2203.08635, arXiv.org.
    4. Silvana M. Pesenti, 2021. "Reverse Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Modelling," Papers 2107.01065, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    5. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Hazen, Gordon B. & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Plischke, Elmar, 2021. "Probabilistic sensitivity measures as information value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 595-610.
    6. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    7. Dimitriadis, Timo & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2021. "Forecast encompassing tests for the expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 604-621.
    8. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Makam, Vaishno Devi & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis with χ2-divergences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 372-383.
    13. Pitera, Marcin & Schmidt, Thorsten, 2018. "Unbiased estimation of risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-145.
    14. Emanuele Borgonovo & Gordon B. Hazen & Elmar Plischke, 2016. "A Common Rationale for Global Sensitivity Measures and Their Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1871-1895, October.
    15. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2013. "Coherence and elicitability," Papers 1303.1690, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2014.
    16. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    17. Patrick Schmidt & Matthias Katzfuss & Tilmann Gneiting, 2021. "Interpretation of point forecasts with unknown directive," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(6), pages 728-743, September.
    18. Tobias Fissler & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang & Linxiao Wei, 2024. "Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures," Papers 2404.14136, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    19. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2014. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Papers 1401.4787, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2015.
    20. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.

    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:2203.00460. 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.