University of Mannheim

arXiv:1707.09604v1 [] 30 Jul 2017

Elicitability and its Application in Risk
Management

presented by

Jonas Reiner Brehmer

Master’s thesis
at the
School of Business Informatics and Mathematics
Department of Stochastics and its Applications
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Martin Schlather, Dr. Kirstin Strokorb

Date of Submission: April 3, 2017

Declaration of Authorship
I declare that I have authored this thesis independently, that I have not used other
than the declared sources and resources and that I have explicitly marked all material which has been quoted either literally or by content from the used sources.
The thesis in this form has not been submitted to an examination body and has
not been published.

Mannheim, 03.04.2017

Jonas Reiner Brehmer

Acknowledgement
At first, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors for their
guidance. The extensive feedback provided by Kirstin Strokorb and the fruitful
discussions I had with her significantly improved this thesis. I am grateful to Martin
Schlather for his valuable advice as well as his encouragement to focus on statistics
during my master program. Moreover, I would like to thank Ria Grindel, Todor
Germanov and Irina Toncheva for helpful comments and discussions and Torsten
Pook and Nicholas Schreck for proofreading. Furthermore, I thank Vadim Alekseev
for contributing the idea for Example 1.33. Finally, I am obliged to my family, who
supported me during my studies.

Mannheim, 03.04.2017
Jonas Reiner Brehmer

Contents
Acknowledgement

ii

Introduction

iv

1 Elicitability and identifiability
1.1 Definitions and framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Basic results and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Osband’s principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
1
3
14

2 Applications of elicitability
2.1 Forecast comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Quantile and expectile regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 M-estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24
24
31
40

3 Elicitability in risk management
3.1 Risk measures and their properties . . .
3.2 Examples of law-invariant risk measures
3.3 Joint elicitability of spectral measures of
3.4 Comparative backtesting . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

46
46
54
63
69

4 Further topics and discussion
4.1 Functionals with elicitable components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Perspectives on non-elicitable functionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72
72
77
85

A Auxiliary results

87

Notation

92

Bibliography

94

iii

. . .
. . .
risk
. . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

Introduction
Many decision makers encounter situations in which they face uncertain future
events, for instance rainfall on the next day, value of a stock in one week, or customers during the next month. This uncertainty is usually modelled by a random
variable Y with unknown distribution function. The decisions are then guided by
forecasts of a real-valued property of Y and since there are usually different possibilities to obtain such forecasts, it is necessary to assess their accuracy. One approach
to do this consists of comparing the forecasts to realizations of Y using a scoring
function S. One of the most important theoretical aspects which has to be considered when performing such a comparison is the concept of elicitability. Elicitability
is a property of real-valued (or Rk -valued) mappings defined on a set of distribution
functions F. These mappings are called functionals in this thesis and represent
statistical properties of a distribution, e.g. mean, variance, or median. A functional
T is called elicitable if there exists a scoring function S such that for any F ∈ F
the expectation ES(x, Y ), where Y is a random variable with distribution F , takes
its unique minimum at x = T (F ). Such a scoring function is then called strictly
consistent for T . Hence, when a statistical property is modelled by a functional T
and different forecasters issue reports of this functional, each report x is assessed
by calculating the score S(x, y), where y is a realization of Y . It was argued by
Gneiting [23] that in such a setting T should be elicitable and S should be strictly
consistent for T . This is because for such S, and if the reward for lower scores is
higher, the forecasters will minimize the expected score in order to maximize their
expected payoff. Therefore, the forecasters have an incentive to report the value of
T for their subjective distribution function.
Although many functionals like for example expectations or quantiles are elicitable,
other functionals fail to have this property, with the most prominent example being the variance. Hence, when comparing the accuracy of forecasts using scoring
functions, it is necessary to check if the related functional is elicitable. Since it is
an important task in quantitative risk management to perform comparative backtests in order to compare different risk estimation procedures, this insight led to the
opinion that elicitability is a desirable property for a law-invariant risk measure.
The popular risk measure Value at Risk is elicitable, but has the major drawback
that it is not coherent in the sense of Artzner et al. [5]. Conversely, the coherent
risk measure Expected Shortfall, which was proposed as a replacement for Value
at Risk, fails to be elicitable as shown by [23]. One solution to this dilemma is

iv

v

the use of Expectile Value at Risk, a risk measure which is both coherent and
elicitable. Another solution is offered by considering multi-dimensional functionals.
For instance, the vector-valued functional consisting of the mean and the variance
is elicitable, although the variance alone fails to have this property. Consequently,
such non-elicitable functionals which are a component of an elicitable functional
are called jointly elicitable. Their existence underlines the important role played
by vector-valued functionals and led to the question whether Expected Shortfall is
also jointly elicitable.
An affirmative answer was given by Fissler and Ziegel [16], who proved that Expected Shortfall is elicitable if combined with Value at Risk. In fact, they even
showed that all spectral risk measures with finite spectrum, i.e. finite convex combinations of Expected Shortfall at different levels, are jointly elicitable. Moreover,
they are one of the first to establish important results for vector-valued functionals. Their article constitutes the main motivation for this thesis together with
other relevant developments related to elicitability, including, but not limited to,
Gneiting [23], Lambert [35], and Steinwart et al. [43]. This thesis reviews the most
important results, examples, and applications which are found in the recent literature. Moreover, we also contribute our own examples and findings in order to give
the reader a well-founded overview of the topic as well as of the most used tools
and techniques. The covered material includes necessary and sufficient conditions
for strictly consistent scoring functions, several elicitable as well as non-elicitable
functionals and the use of elicitability in forecast comparison, regression, and estimation. Since it is beyond the scope of this thesis to elaborate on all aspects of the
theory on elicitability, we give references to the literature wherever we do not go
into details or omit material.
The thesis is structured as follows. In the first chapter we introduce notation and
present classical results in the theory of elicitability as well as detailed examples
of functionals and (strictly) consistent scoring functions. Moreover, we consider
two versions of Osband’s principle, a result which connects strictly consistent scoring functions to identification functions. In Chapter 2 we present key aspects of
probabilistic forecasting in order to illustrate its differences to point forecasting.
Moreover, we discuss applications of elicitability in regression and estimation and
introduce quantiles and expectiles, two types of elicitable functionals which are used
to define risk measures in Chapter 3. Moreover, the third chapter introduces the
notions of coherent and convex measures of risk and continues by discussing the
properties of the three risk measures Value at Risk, Expected Shortfall and Expectile Value at Risk. A proof that spectral risk measures with finite spectrum
are jointly elicitable is presented. A discussion of comparative backtesting for risk
measures concludes the third chapter. Finally, Chapter 4 characterizes strictly consistent scoring functions for vector-valued functionals having elicitable components.
Furthermore, two different perspectives on non-elicitable functionals are discussed.
A discussion about the presented results and open problems ends the thesis. Auxiliary results are moved to the appendix.

Chapter 1

Elicitability and identifiability
This chapter is meant to give a short introduction to the concepts of elicitability
and identifiability. It starts with the most important definitions needed throughout
the thesis and proceeds with some standard results and examples to make the ideas
clearer. Finally, a multi-dimensional version of Osband’s principle, which builds
a bridge between elicitability and identifiability, is presented. Most results, and
especially the used notation, can be found in Fissler and Ziegel [16]. Supplementary
material to the article [16] is presented in [15].

1.1

Definitions and framework

We start with the underlying probability framework. Fix a dimension d and a set
O ⊆ Rd and equip it with the Borel σ-algebra O, which is the trace of the Borel
σ-algebra of Rd (see for example Klenke [31, Ch. 1.1]). A Borel probability measure on the measurable space (O, O) is denoted by P , and we also refer to it by
its cumulative distribution function FP . The function FP : Rd → [0, 1] is defined
via FP (x) = P ((−∞, x] ∩ O), where (−∞, x] = (−∞, x1 ] × . . . × (−∞, xd ] ⊂ Rd .
A class of distribution functions over (O, O) is denoted by F. Finally, fix another dimension k and a set A ⊆ Rk . We represent a property of a distribution
function F ∈ F by using a functional T : F → A and its image is denoted via
T (F) := {x ∈ A | ∃F ∈ F : T (F ) = x}. We use the symbols A and O because these
sets are also called action domain and observation domain, respectively. An interpretation which justifies these terms is presented in Section 2.1.
Following the probability framework, we now turn to integrability. A function
h : O → R is called F-integrable if it is integrable with respect to all F ∈ F.
Similarly, a function g : A × O → R is said to be F-integrable if g(x, ·) is integrable
for all F ∈ F and all x ∈ A. For Rd -valued functions, the integral is defined
componentwise and such functions are called F-integrable if each component is
F-integrable. In order to simplify notation and make clear with respect to which
probability measure (or distribution function) a function is integrated, we introduce

1

1.1. DEFINITIONS AND FRAMEWORK

2

the mapping
Z
ḡ : A × F → R,

(x, F ) 7→ ḡ(x, F ) =

g(x, y) dF (y)
O

for an F-integrable function g, where the integral dF (y) denotes the LebesgueStieltjes integral. Since there is a probability measure P , of which F is the distribution function, dF (y) is the Lebesgue integral with respect to P . If the set
over which the integral is calculated is not specified, the whole space on which the
measure is defined is meant.
If we take n ∈ N and consider g : A × O → Rn , we can fix y ∈ O or F ∈ F to
obtain the mappings g(·, y) or ḡ(·, F ). If g(·, y) is sufficiently smooth, we denote its
i-th partial derivative via ∂i g(·, y) for i = 1, . . . , k. Moreover, we define the gradient
of g(·, y) via ∇g(·, y) := (∂1 g(·, y), . . . , ∂k g(·, y))> . The same notation is used for
ḡ(·, F ). A function with domain A is called (partially) differentiable if its partial
derivatives exist for all interior points of A, denoted by int(A). It is called continuously differentiable if its partial derivatives exist and are continuous functions for
all points in int(A).
Using the previous notation, we define the main concepts of this thesis, namely elicitability and identifiability. We use the common definitions, which were established
in the articles of Gneiting [23] and Steinwart et al. [43] among others. In contrast
to Fissler and Ziegel [16], we suppress the dimensionality of the range of T , that is,
we call a k-dimensional functional elicitable instead of k-elicitable and identifiable
instead of k-identifiable.
Definition 1.1. A scoring function is an F-integrable function S : A × O → R.
It is F-consistent for a functional T : F → A if for all x ∈ A and F ∈ F we have
S̄(x, F ) ≥ S̄(T (F ), F ). It is strictly F-consistent for T if it is F-consistent for T
and for all x ∈ A and F ∈ F the equality S̄(x, F ) = S̄(T (F ), F ) implies x = T (F ).
Definition 1.2 (Elicitability). A functional T : F → A ⊆ Rk is called elicitable if
there exists a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
Definition 1.3. An identification function is an F-integrable function V : A × O →
Rk . It is an F-identification function for a functional T : F → A ⊆ Rk if for all
F ∈ F it holds that V̄ (T (F ), F ) = 0. It is a strict F-identification function for T
if for all x ∈ A and F ∈ F we have V̄ (x, F ) = 0 if and only if x = T (F ).
Definition 1.4 (Identifiability). A functional T : F → A ⊆ Rk is called identifiable
if there exists a strict F-identification function for T .
Remark 1.5. Note that F-consistent scoring functions as well as F-identification
functions always exist. All constant functions are scoring functions and they are
consistent for any functional T : F → A. Similarly, the function which is zero
everywhere and defined on A is a trivial F-identification function for any T .

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

3

Wherever necessary, we follow [16] and impose the following assumption on the
functions S and V .
Assumption 1.6. Let V be an identification function and S a scoring function for
a functional T : F → A. For all x ∈ A the functions V (x, ·) and S(x, ·) are locally
bounded. Moreover, for all y ∈ O the function V (·, y) is locally Lebesgue-integrable.
We say that a property, e.g. boundedness, is satisfied locally if it is satisfied on all
compact sets.
For an identification function we add the notion of orientation, which is quite intuitive in the one-dimensional case. Let T : F → A ⊆ R be a functional and
V : A × O → R an F-identification function for T . Then V is called oriented if for
all x ∈ A and F ∈ F
V̄ (x, F ) > 0 ⇐⇒ x > T (F ).
Generalizing this notion for A ⊆ Rk with k ≥ 1 leads to the following definition
which is introduced in Fissler and Ziegel [15].
Definition 1.7 (Orientation). Let T : F → A ⊆ Rk be a functional with a strict
F-identification function V : A × O → Rk . Then V is called oriented strict Fidentification function if for all F ∈ F, v ∈ Sk−1 and s ∈ R such that T (F ) + sv ∈ A
it holds that
v > V̄ (T (F ) + sv, F ) > 0 ⇐⇒ s > 0,
where Sk−1 := {x ∈ Rk | kxk = 1} is the (k − 1)-sphere in Rk .
Looking at this definition, we immediately obtain the one-dimensional version of
orientation by observing that S0 = {−1, 1} and setting s = x − T (F ).

1.2

Basic results and examples

This section presents central properties of F-consistent scoring functions and Fidentification functions. Moreover, it contains some examples of functionals which
are elicitable and some which fail to have this property. We begin with one of the
simplest functionals known to be elicitable and state our own arguments to prove
this fact.
Example 1.8 (Elicitability of the mean). It is well known that the mean of a
random variable Y with finite second moments minimizes the function f (x) = E(Y −
x)2 . Therefore, we would suggest that the mean is an elicitable functional. To make
this rigorous, let (Ω, A , P) be a probability space and Y : Ω → O ⊆ Rd a random
vector. Define F to be a class of distribution functions on (O, O) for which all
marginal distributions have finite second moments and set A := Rd . Let the mean
functional be defined via
Z
T : F → A, F 7→ T (F ) :=
y dF (y)
(1.1)
O

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

4

and the scoring function via S : A × O → R, (x, y) →
7 ky − xk2 . Now fix x ∈ A,
F ∈ F and set t := T (F ). Then for Y =d F under P we obtain
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = EkY − xk2 − 2E(Y − x)> (Y − t) + EkY − tk2
+ 2E(Y − x)> (Y − t) − 2EkY − tk2
= kx − tk2 + 2(x − t)> E(Y − t) = kx − tk2
because t = T (F ) = EY . Hence, S̄(x, F ) ≥ S̄(T (F ), F ) and equality implies that
x = T (F ). Consequently, S is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T and the
mean is elicitable for the class F.
One question which now naturally arises is: Can we get rid of the assumption of
finite second moments? Indeed, this is possible and only the existence of first moments is required if the scoring function S is modified. To do so, recall that a strictly
convex and differentiable function f has the property f (r) − f (s) > ∇f (s)> (r − s)
for r 6= s, a fact which is extensively used in [16]. So let F 0 be a class of distribution functions for which the marginal distributions have finite first moments.
Letting f : A → R be a strictly convex and differentiable function, we redefine
S(x, y) := −f (x) − ∇f (x)> (y − x) and extend the definition of T in (1.1) to the
new class F 0 . Again, let x ∈ A and F ∈ F 0 be arbitrary. For Y =d F under P and
t := T (F ) we calculate
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = f (t) − f (x) − ∇f (x)> E(Y − x) + ∇f (t)> E(Y − t)
= f (t) − f (x) − ∇f (x)> E(Y − x)
= f (t) − f (x) − ∇f (x)> (t − x) ≥ 0,
where t = EY is used. Consequently, S̄(x, F ) ≥ S̄(T (F ), F ) and due to the strict
convexity of f , equality holds if and only if x = T (F ). Therefore, S is a strictly
F 0 -consistent scoring function for T and the mean is elicitable for the wider class
F 0 , too.

From the previous example it is immediately clear that expectations of transformations of a random variable Y , for example E exp(Y ) or moments of Y , are elicitable.
Moreover, the next theorem states that this can be extended to ratios of expectations having the same denominator. Similar results can be found in Gneiting [23,
Thm. 8] for the one-dimensional case and in Frongillo and Kash [21, Thm. 13] for
the case A ⊆ Rk .
Theorem 1.9 (Elicitability of ratios of expectations). For k ∈ N and a class of distribution functions F let h : O → Rk and q : O → (0, ∞) be F-integrable functions.
Then the functional T defined via

>
h̄1 (F )
h̄k (F )
k
T : F → A ⊆ R , F 7→ T (F ) :=
,...,
q̄(F )
q̄(F )
is elicitable. Moreover, F-consistent scoring functions S : A × O → R are given by
S(x, y) = −f (x)q(y) − ∇f (x)> (h(y) − q(y)x),

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

5

where f : A → R is a convex function. The function S is strictly consistent if f is
strictly convex.
Proof. At first, we note that T is well-defined since q̄(F ) is strictly positive for
any F ∈ F. Moreover, S is F-integrable because h and q have this property. To
show consistency, fix F ∈ F, x ∈ A and set t := T (F ) = h̄(F )/q̄(F ). Similar to
Example 1.8 we calculate
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = q̄(F )f (t) − q̄(F )f (x) − ∇f (x)> (h̄(F ) − q̄(F )x)
+ ∇f (t)> (h̄(F ) − q̄(F )t)
= q̄(F )(f (t) − f (x)) − q̄(F )∇f (x)> (t − x)


= q̄(F ) f (t) − f (x) − ∇f (x)> (t − x) ≥ 0,
where the inequality follows from the convexity of f . Therefore, S is an F-consistent
scoring function for T . If f is strictly convex and x 6= t holds, the inequality is
strict and S is strictly consistent. This implies that T is elicitable and finishes the
proof.
Remark 1.10. Under additional regularity assumptions it can be shown that every
strictly consistent scoring function for the mean is of the form S(x, y) = −f (x) −
∇f (x)> (y − x) for some strictly convex function f . The precise result for the case
k = 1 can be found in [23, Thm. 7], together with a list of references to similar
results. This list includes Osband and Reichelstein [40, Sec. 3] who also treat the
case k > 1. A similar characterization can be done for ratios of expectations having
the same denominator. In this situation, all strictly consistent scoring functions are
of the form presented in Theorem 1.9. For the case k = 1 we refer to [23] again and
the case k ≥ 1 is treated in [16], using techniques presented in Section 4.1.
Example 1.11. An easy way to construct an elicitable functional T : F → A is
possible if an F-integrable function S : A × O → R is given such that for any
F ∈ F the function x 7→ S̄(x, F ) has a unique minimum. It is then possible to
define T (F ) := argminx∈A S̄(x, F ) and T is by definition an elicitable functional
with strictly F-consistent scoring function S.

The following lemma shows how strictly F-consistent scoring functions can be manipulated, without destroying their consistency. In particular, we can scale them
with positive constants, add certain functions and form convex combinations of
scoring functions. Moreover, it is possible to force scoring functions to be positive
under some circumstances. The following lemma is a summary of properties which
are stated without proof in [15, 16].
Lemma 1.12. Let T : F → A be a functional and S, S1 : A×O → R be F-consistent
scoring functions for T , with S being even strictly F-consistent. Then the following
hold true:

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

6

(i) For any λ > 0 and any F-integrable function h : O → R the scoring function
S∗ (x, y) := λS(x, y) + h(y)
is again strictly F-consistent for T .
(ii) The sum
S∗ (x, y) := S(x, y) + S1 (x, y)
is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
(iii) If for all y ∈ O, δy ∈ F and the mapping h : O → R, y 7→ S(T (δy ), y) is
F-integrable, then
S∗ (x, y) := S(x, y) − h(y)
is a nonnegative strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
(iv) Let (Z, Z, ν) be a measure space, where ν 6= 0 is a σ-finite measure. Moreover,
let {Sz | z ∈ Z} be a family of strictly F-consistent scoring functions for T .
If for all x ∈ A and F ∈ F the mapping Z × O → R, (z, y) 7→ Sz (x, y) is
ν ⊗ F -integrable, then
Z
S∗ (x, y) :=
Sz (x, y) dν(z)
Z

is again a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
Proof. (i): For x ∈ A and F ∈ F we obtain
S̄∗ (x, F ) = λS̄(x, F ) + h̄(F ) ≥ λS̄(T (F ), F ) + h̄(F ) = S̄∗ (T (F ), F )
and equality implies x = T (F ) due to the strict F-consistency of S.
(ii): Again take x ∈ A and F ∈ F to get
S̄∗ (x, F ) = S̄(x, F ) + S̄1 (x, F ) ≥ S̄(T (F ), F ) + S̄1 (T (F ), F ) = S̄∗ (T (F ), F )
with equality implying
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(T (F ), F ) = S̄1 (T (F ), F ) − S̄1 (x, F ).
The left-hand side of this equation is nonnegative while the right-hand side is nonpositive. Therefore, the terms on both sides vanish and the strict F-consistency of
S implies x = T (F ).
(iii): The strict F-consistency of S∗ follows from part (i). To show that S∗ is
positive, we pick x ∈ A and y ∈ O and calculate
S∗ (x, y) = S(x, y) − S(T (δy ), y) = S(x, y) − S̄(T (δy ), δy ) ≥ S(x, y) − S̄(x, δy ) = 0.
(iv): Let x ∈ A and F ∈ F be arbitrary. The mapping (z, y) 7→ Sz (x, y) is ν ⊗ F integrable and both (Z, Z, ν) and (O, O, F ) are σ-finite measure spaces. Therefore,

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

7

we may use Fubini’s theorem (see for instance [31, Ch. 14.2]) to change the order
of integration. This gives
Z
Z Z
Sz (x, y) dν(z) dF (y) =
S̄z (x, F ) dν(z)
S̄∗ (x, F ) =
ZO Z
Z Z Z
Sz (T (F ), y) dν(z) dF (y) = S̄∗ (T (F ), F )
≥
S̄z (T (F ), F ) dν(z) =
Z

O

Z

with equality implying
Z
S̄z (x, F ) − S̄z (T (F ), F ) dν(z) = 0.

(1.2)

Z

For any z ∈ Z the integrand is positive due to the F-consistency of Sz . Consequently, we have S̄z (x, F ) = S̄z (T (F ), F ) for ν-almost every z and this implies
x = T (F ).
Remark 1.13. Note that in part (ii) of Lemma 1.12 only one of the scoring functions
needs to be strictly F-consistent. A similar fact holds true for part (iv), which
becomes apparent in Equation (1.2). More precisely, we only need to require that
there is a subset Z 0 ⊂ Z with ν(Z 0 ) > 0 such that the scoring functions {Sz | z ∈ Z 0 }
are strictly F-consistent. All other members of the scoring function family need only
be F-consistent.
Next we consider how conditions for the elicitability of T : F → A react if we
modify the set of distribution functions F or the set A. As the following lemma
shows, strict consistency of a function S is preserved if we look at subsets A0 ⊆ A
or F 0 ⊆ F.
Lemma 1.14 (Fissler and Ziegel [16, Lemma 2.5]). Let T : F → A ⊂ Rk be a
functional and S : A × O → R a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T . Then
the following assertions are true:
(i) Let F 0 ⊆ F and set T 0 := T|F 0 . Then S is also a strictly F 0 -consistent scoring
function for T 0 .
(ii) Let A0 ⊆ A such that T (F) ⊆ A0 and set S 0 := S|A0 ×O . Then S 0 is a strictly
F-consistent scoring function for T .
Proof. (i): Let x ∈ A and F ∈ F 0 . Then we also have F ∈ F and T 0 (F ) = T (F ),
which immediately gives the definition of strict F 0 -consistency for T 0 .
(ii): Let F ∈ F. For any x ∈ A0 we have S̄(x, F ) = S̄ 0 (x, F ), which implies that S 0
is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
Next we present a criterion which can be used to check if a given scoring function
is strictly F-consistent for a functional T . In particular, the second part shows how
it is possible to establish strict F-consistency for a scoring function if its gradient is
an oriented strict F-identification function. This already hints at Section 1.3, where

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

8

we establish a similar relation between elicitability and identifiability. In part (ii)
of the following lemma, we assume that the partial derivatives are dominated by an
integrable function in order to permit interchanging differentiation and integration.
Apart from this assumption, the result and its proof can be found in [15, Lemma
2.9].
Lemma 1.15. Let S : A × O → R be a scoring function and T : F → A ⊆ Rk a
functional. Then the following assertions hold:
(i) S is strictly F-consistent for T if and only if for all F ∈ F, v ∈ Sk−1 and
t = T (F ) the function
ΨF,v : {s ∈ R | t + sv ∈ A} → R,

s 7→ S̄(t + sv, F )

(1.3)

has a global unique minimum at s = 0.
(ii) Let S be continuously differentiable in x and suppose there is an F-integrable
function h such that the inequality supx∈A |∂i S(x, ·)| ≤ h holds F -almost surely
for all F ∈ F and i = 1, . . . , k. Moreover, set F 0 := T −1 (int(A)) ⊆ F. If
∇S : int(A) × O → Rk is an oriented strict F 0 -identification function for T|F 0 ,
then S| int(A)×O is a strictly F 0 -consistent scoring function for T|F 0 .
(iii) For all F ∈ F, let S̄(·, F ) be continuously differentiable and define F 0 as in
(ii). If for all F ∈ F 0 with t = T (F ) and all v ∈ Sk−1 , s ∈ R such that
t + sv ∈ int(A) it holds that

 > 0, if s > 0
>
= 0, if s = 0
(1.4)
v ∇S̄(t + sv, F )

< 0, if s < 0
then S| int(A)×O is a strictly F 0 -consistent scoring function for T|F 0 .
Proof. (i): At first, we define DF,v := {s ∈ R | T (F ) + sv ∈ A} and let S be a
strictly F-consistent scoring function for T . For any F ∈ F, v ∈ Sk−1 and r ∈ DF,v
we get ΨF,v (r) = S̄(T (F ) + rv, F ) ≥ S̄(T (F ), F ) = ΨF,v (0) so ΨF,v has a minimum
at r = 0. Moreover, ΨF,v (r) = ΨF,v (0) implies T (F ) + rv = T (F ) due to the strict
F-consistency of S, so the minimum is unique. To show the converse implication,
take any x ∈ A, F ∈ F and represent x via T (F ) + rv = x for some r ∈ R and
v ∈ Sk−1 . Now S̄(x, F ) = ΨF,v (r) ≥ ΨF,v (0) = S̄(T (F ), F ) and equality implies
x = T (F ), since the minimum of ΨF,v is unique.
(ii): To show this, we apply part (i). To this end, fix F ∈ F 0 and v ∈ Sk−1 and
define DF,v := {s ∈ R | T (F ) + sv ∈ int(A)} as above. To simplify notation, write
S instead of S| int(A)×O . Applying Theorem A.7 from the appendix, we see that
the function ΨF,v as defined in (1.3) is continuously differentiable on DF,v and for
s ∈ DF,v satisfies
Z
d
d
0
ΨF,v (s) =
S(t + sv, y) dF (y) = v > ∇S(t + sv, F ).
S̄(T (F ) + sv, F ) =
ds
O ds

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

9

By assumption, ∇S is an oriented strict F 0 -identification function for T|F 0 , so
Ψ0F,v (0) = 0, Ψ0F,v (s) > 0 for s > 0 and Ψ0F,v (s) < 0 for s < 0 according to
Definition 1.7. Therefore, s = 0 is a unique minimum of ΨF,v and by (i) S| int(A)×O
is a strictly F 0 -consistent scoring function for T|F 0 .
(iii): Again we apply (i). Let F ∈ F 0 and v ∈ Sk−1 be arbitrary and define DF,v as
well as ΨF,v as in (ii). The function ΨF,v is continuously differentiable by assumption and Ψ0F,v (s) = v > ∇S̄(T (F ) + sv, F ). Due to Equation (1.4), ΨF,v has a unique
minimum at s = 0 and an application of (i) finishes the proof.
The next proposition gives an important necessary condition for the strict Fconsistency of a functional T . The result allows us to clarify the question if, similar
to the mean, the variance functional is elicitable (see also Example 1.8). The result
is found in Gneiting [23, Thm. 6], Lambert [35], and Fissler and Ziegel [15, Proposition 2.14] and the latter credit Kent Osband for stating this result in his doctoral
thesis. It is also called the ‘convexity of level sets’-property.
Proposition 1.16 (Convexity of level sets). Let T : F → A ⊆ Rk be an elicitable
functional. Then for all F0 , F1 ∈ F such that t := T (F0 ) = T (F1 ) and all λ ∈ (0, 1)
such that Fλ := (1 − λ)F0 + λF1 ∈ F we have T (Fλ ) = t.
Proof. Since T is elicitable, we select a strictly F-consistent scoring function and
denote it by S. For any x ∈ A the linearity of the integral gives
S̄(x, Fλ ) = (1 − λ)S̄(x, F0 ) + λS̄(x, F1 )
≥ (1 − λ)S̄(T (F0 ), F0 ) + λS̄(T (F1 ), F1 ) = S̄(t, Fλ ) ≥ S̄(T (Fλ ), Fλ )
and setting x = T (Fλ ), gives t = T (Fλ ) due to the strict F-consistency of S.
Remark 1.17. In the one-dimensional case, the necessary condition of convex level
sets is also a sufficient condition under certain assumptions. For finite probability
spaces this is shown by Lambert [35, Thm. 5], who assumes that T is continuous and
on no open set in F constant. The result is extended to arbitrary probability spaces
by Steinwart et al. [43]. They additionally assume that all probability measures
(PF )F ∈F admit a bounded density with respect to some finite measure µ and equip
this space with the total variation norm. For k > 1 sufficient conditions are still
unknown, since a counterexample of Frongillo and Kash [21, Example 1] shows that
convex level sets do not suffice. That some additional assumptions on the functional
as used in [35] and [43] are indeed necessary is demonstrated by Heinrich [27], who
shows that the mode functional fails to be elicitable, although having convex level
sets.
In the next example we present our own calculations to check the level set condition
for the variance.
Example 1.18 (Non-elicitability of the variance). For A := [0, ∞), O := R and
some class of distribution functions F let the variance functional be defined in the

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

10

same manner as in [15, Corollary 2.16], by setting
Z
2
Z
2
y dF (y) −
y dF (y) .
T : F → A, F 7→ T (F ) :=
O

(1.5)

O

Naturally, we restrict F to all distributions having finite second moments. In order
to establish the non-elicitability of T and in view of Proposition 1.21, it suffices
to find two distributions F1 and F2 with T (F1 ) = T (F2 ) = t and λ ∈ (0, 1) such
that T (Fλ ) 6= t. To this end, fix a measure space (Ω, A , P) and let Y1 =d F1 and
Y2 =d F2 be random variables on it such that Var(Y1 ) = Var(Y2 ). Moreover, let
B : Ω → {0, 1} be a random variable having a Bernoulli distribution with parameter
λ ∈ (0, 1) under P. Assuming that B is independent of Y1 , Y2 , we calculate for any
x ∈ O the distribution function of Zλ := BY1 + (1 − B)Y2 , given by
P(BY1 + (1 − B)Y2 ≤ x) = P(BY1 + (1 − B)Y2 ≤ x, B = 1)
+ P(BY1 + (1 − B)Y2 ≤ x, B = 0)
= P(Y1 ≤ x)P(B = 1) + P(Y2 ≤ x)P(B = 0)
= λF1 (x) + (1 − λ)F2 (x).
Therefore, Zλ has distribution function Fλ := λF1 + (1 − λ)F2 under P. Hence, in
order to study the elicitability of (1.5), we have to check for which random variables
Y1 , Y2 , and B it holds that Var(Y1 ) = Var(Y2 ) = t implies Var(Zλ ) = t.
We begin by calculating the expectation and variance of Zλ in terms of expectation
and variance of Y1 , Y2 , and B. We obtain the formulas
EZλ = λEY1 + (1 − λ)EY2
Var(Zλ ) = EB 2 Y12 + 2EB(1 − B)Y1 Y2 + E(1 − B)2 Y22 − (EZλ )2
= λEY12 + (1 − λ)EY22 − (λEY1 + (1 − λ)EY2 )2
= λ Var(Y1 ) + (1 − λ) Var(Y2 ) + λ(1 − λ)(EY1 − EY2 )2
and realize that the variance cannot be elicitable if the expectations of Y1 and Y2 do
not coincide. In the situation of differing expectations we always have that Var(Zλ )
and Var(Y1 ) differ by λ(1 − λ)(EY1 − EY2 )2 > 0. Consequently, if a class F contains
distributions F1 , F2 such that they have equal variance but different expectation and
λF1 + (1 − λ)F2 ∈ F for a λ ∈ (0, 1), the variance functional (1.5) is not elicitable
relative to F

Remark 1.19. In light of the previous example we will from now on say that the
variance is not elicitable. With this statement we do not want to say that it is
impossible to find a class F such that the functional (1.5) is elicitable. It rather
means that for classes which are ‘reasonably’ rich it is not possible to elicit the
variance. Which class F is rich enough to say that some functional T is not elicitable,
when it, strictly speaking, only fails to be elicitable if defined on F, is of course
subjective. Nevertheless, if we keep this fact in mind, we can safely speak of a
functional as being not elicitable in the following.

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

11

Example 1.20. To clarify the results of Example 1.18 and the previous remark we
look again at the variance functional defined in (1.5). If we change F to be the class
of all centered distribution functions with existing second moments, the variance is
identical to the second moment for all F ∈ F. Since Theorem 1.9 shows that all
moments are elicitable, we see that the variance functional is elicitable relative to
this class of distribution functions.

The previous examples emphasize that the choice of the class F is significant and
elicitability cannot be studied without making this choice. Another important aspect is that if a functional is not elicitable for some class F, it nevertheless can be
elicitable in combination with some other functionals. More precisely, it can be part
of a vector of functionals which is elicitable. This fact is mathematically explained
by the revelation principle, which is stated and proved in [15, Prop. 2.13] and [23,
Thm. 4]. Both sources credit Kent Osband.
Proposition 1.21 (Revelation principle). Choose A, A0 ∈ Rk and let g : A → A0 be a
bijection with inverse g −1 . Let T : F → A and Tg : F → A0 , F 7→ Tg (F ) := g(T (F ))
be functionals. Then the following is true:
(i) T is identifiable if and only if Tg is identifiable. A function V : A × O → Rk
is a strict F-identification function for T if and only if Vg : A0 × O → Rk ,
(x, y) 7→ Vg (x, y) := V (g −1 (x), y) is a strict F-identification function for Tg .
(ii) T is elicitable if and only if Tg is elicitable. A function S : A × O → R is a
strictly F-consistent scoring function for T if and only if Sg : A0 × O → R,
(x, y) 7→ Sg (x, y) := S(g −1 (x), y) is a strictly F-consistent scoring function
for Tg .
Proof. (i): It suffices to show one implication since g is a bijection. Moreover, by the
definition of identifiability, we only need to show that Vg is a strict F-identification
function if V is. So let F ∈ F, x0 ∈ A0 and set x = g −1 (x0 ). Then we have that
V̄g (x0 , F ) = 0 ⇔ V̄ (g −1 (x0 ), F ) = 0 ⇔ V̄ (x, F ) = 0 and the identification property
yields that this is equivalent to x = T (F ) ⇔ x0 = Tg (F ).
(ii): As in (i) it suffices to show that Sg is a strictly F-consistent scoring function
if S is. So let F ∈ F, x0 ∈ A0 and set x = g −1 (x0 ). This yields the inequality
S̄g (x0 , F ) = S̄(g −1 (x0 ), F ) = S̄(x, F ) ≥ S̄(T (F ), F )
= S̄(g −1 (g(T (F ))), F ) = S̄g (Tg (F ), F ),
and equality implies x = T (F ), which gives x0 = g(x) = g(T (F )) = Tg (F ).
Remark 1.22. The revelation principle states that elicitability is preserved if a functional is transformed using a bijective mapping. For example, we obtain that if T is
elicitable, so is −T . Moreover, if we consider the √
one-dimensional case, aT + c (with
a 6= 0) is elicitable and if T is nonnegative, also T or |T | are elicitable. The same
holds for identifiability and consistent scoring functions as well as identification
functions can be calculated using Proposition 1.21.

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

12

In the following example we use the revelation principle to show that mean and
variance are jointly elicitable. We apply the same technique as [15, Cor. 2.16].
Example 1.23 (Joint elicitability of mean and variance). It is well known, that
the representation Var(Y ) = EY 2 − (EY )2 holds. A bijection between the first two
moments and the pair (expectation, variance) is thus immediately seen. To be more
precise, let T1 be the mean functional defined in (1.1) and T2 the second moment
functional defined by setting k = 1, h(x) = x2 and q(x) = 1 in Theorem 1.9. Denote
the variance functional defined in (1.5) via TVar . Let F be a class of distribution
functions on O := R such that second moments exist for all members. Define the sets
A := {(x1 , x2 ) | x2 ≥ x21 } ⊂ R2 and A0 := R×[0, ∞) ⊂ R2 with a bijection g : A → A0
given by (x1 , x2 ) 7→ (x1 , x2 − x21 ). The inverse of g is given by g −1 : A0 → A,
(x1 , x2 ) 7→ (x1 , x2 + x21 ). The functional we are interested in, namely (T1 , TVar )> ,
can now be written as g((T1 , T2 )) and hence it is elicitable due to the revelation
principle 1.21. Why (T1 , T2 )> is elicitable is rigorously proved in Lemma 1.25 (i).
We calculate a strictly F-consistent scoring function for (T1 , TVar )> by taking a
strictly F-consistent scoring function S for (T1 , T2 )> similar to Example 1.8, that
is
S(x1 , x2 , y) := −f1 (x1 ) − f10 (x1 )(y − x1 ) − f2 (x2 ) − f20 (x2 )(y 2 − x2 )
for two differentiable strictly convex functions f1 , f2 . The strict consistency of S for
(T1 , T2 )> follows from Lemma 1.25. If we now apply the revelation principle once
again, we obtain that
Sg (x1 , x2 , y) = S(g1−1 (x1 , x2 ), g2−1 (x1 , x2 ), y)
= − f1 (x1 ) − f10 (x1 )(y − x1 ) − f2 (x2 + x21 )
− f20 (x2 + x21 )(y 2 − (x2 + x21 ))
is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for (T1 , TVar )> . We could also have employed the second part of Proposition 1.21 to show that the functional (T1 , TVar )>
is identifiable and calculate a strict F-identification function.

Remark 1.24. One question which comes to mind regarding the revelation principle
1.21 and Example 1.23 is the following: Can we always find a vector of elicitable
functionals such that we can bijectively map it onto a vector of functionals which
contains (at least) one component not being elicitable? Or more generally put, is
every non-elicitable functional part of an elicitable vector of functionals? The fact
that skewness and kurtosis of a random variable are not elicitable, but can be part of
an elicitable vector (together with the necessary moments), is an encouraging result
in this direction. It can be proved using the revelation principle in the same manner
as Example 1.23. Nevertheless, the examples variance, skewness and kurtosis are
rather simple functionals, and a similar result fails to hold for more complex ones.
The most prominent case is the functional pair Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall,
where the latter is not elicitable. Details are presented in Subsections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.

1.2. BASIC RESULTS AND EXAMPLES

13

This section concludes with a result showing that vectors of functionals are elicitable
if all components are elicitable. That the converse implication is not true is shown
by Examples 1.18 and 1.23. The first part of the result is proved in Fissler and
Ziegel [16, Lemma 2.6] and we prove two similar statements for identifiability.
ki
Lemma 1.25. Let n ≥ 1 and choose
i = 1, . . . , n
Pn functionals Ti : F → Ai ⊆ R for
and k1 , . . . , kn ∈ N. For k := i=1 ki and A := A1 × . . . × An ⊆ Rk we define a
k-dimensional functional T : F → A via T (F ) := (T1 (F ), . . . , Tn (F ))> . Then the
following assertions hold:

(i) T is elicitable if all (Ti )i=1,...,n are elicitable.
(ii) T is identifiable if all (Ti )i=1,...,n are identifiable.
(iii) T has an oriented strict F-identification function if all (Ti )i=1,...,n have such
a function.
Proof. (i): For i ∈ In := {1, . . . , n} let Si : Ai × O → R be a strictly F-consistent
scoring function for Ti . Define the scoring function S for T via
S : A × O → R,

(x, y) 7→ S(x1 , . . . , xn , y) :=

n
X

Si (xi , y).

(1.6)

i=1

Now for any F ∈ F, x ∈ A we obtain
S̄(x1 , . . . , xn , F ) − S̄(T1 (F ), . . . , Tn (F ), F ) =

n
X

S̄i (xi , F ) − S̄i (Ti (F ), F ) ≥ 0

i=1

and every summand is positive, so if equality holds, we have xi = Ti (F ) for all
i ∈ In . This shows that S is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
(ii): As above, for i ∈ In let Vi : Ai × O → Rki be a strict F-identification function
for Ti . Concatenate all Vi to define the identification function
V : A × O → Rk ,

(x, y) 7→ V (x1 , . . . , xn , y) := (V1 (x1 , y), . . . , Vn (xn , y))> . (1.7)

For any F ∈ F, x ∈ A we have V̄ (x1 , . . . , xn , F ) = 0 if and only if V̄i (xi , F ) = 0 for
all i ∈ In and this is equivalent to xi = Ti (F ) for all i ∈ In . Hence, V is a strict
F-identification function for T .
(iii): For i ∈ In let Vi : Ai × O → Rki be an oriented strict F-identification function
for Ti and define V as in (1.7). For F ∈ F, v ∈ Sk−1 and s ∈ R such that
T (F ) + sv ∈ A holds we calculate
v > V̄ (T (F ) + sv, F ) =

n
X

vi> V̄i (Ti (F ) + svi , F ).

i=1

If s > 0, it follows for any i ∈ In that V̄i (Ti (F ) + svi , F ) > 0 ⇔ vi > 0 since Vi is
oriented. Similarly, s < 0 implies that V̄i (Ti (F ) + svi , F ) > 0 ⇔ vi < 0 holds for
any i ∈ In , so V is an oriented F-identification function for T .

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

14

Remark 1.26. The previous lemma states that functionals which have elicitable
(identifiable) components are elicitable (identifiable). Moreover, its proof yields
strictly consistent scoring function in (1.6) and (oriented) strict identification functions in (1.7).

1.3

Osband’s principle

In this section, two versions of Osband’s principle which provide a connection between scoring and identification functions for a functional T are proved. The motivation for this is as follows. If S is a strictly F-consistent scoring function, the
mapping x 7→ S̄(x, F ) attains its minimum at T (F ). Simultaneously, the mapping
x 7→ V̄ (x, F ) vanishes at T (F ) for every strict F-identification function V . Consequently, we are tempted to think of V̄ (·, F ) as the derivative of S̄(·, F ) with respect
to x, which necessarily vanishes for a local minimum. Indeed, we have
∇S̄(x, F ) = h(x)V̄ (x, F )

(1.8)

for a matrix-valued function h and the precise result is stated in Theorem 1.28. If we
further assume that integration and differentiation can be interchanged, we might
even think that hV is the derivative of S with respect to x. A statement of this
type is presented in Theorem 1.31. Both results are important tools to investigate
the structure of strictly consistent scoring functions for a functional T . In many
cases, there is a straightforward way to define a strict identification function for T .
Under certain regularity assumptions, Equation (1.8) can then be used to calculate
a strictly consistent scoring function for T and such an application can be found
in Section 4.1. For both versions of Osband’s principle, we follow the proofs as
presented in Fissler and Ziegel [15] and add more details. A version of Osband’s
principle in the one-dimensional case can also be found in Steinwart et al. [43].

1.3.1

First version of Osband’s principle

This subsection starts with a version of Osband’s principle on the level of expectations as stated in (1.8). Following [16], we state some assumptions concerning the
identification function V and the functions V̄ (·, F ) : A → Rk , x 7→ V̄ (x, F ), which
are needed below. We denote the convex hull of a set M by conv(M ).
Assumption (V1). For every x ∈ int(A) ⊆ Rk there are F1 , . . . , Fk+1 ∈ F such
that
0 ∈ int(conv(V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk+1 ))).
Assumption (V2). For every F ∈ F the mapping V̄ (·, F ) is continuous.
Assumption (V3). For every F ∈ F the mapping V̄ (·, F ) is continuously differentiable.

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

15

Remark 1.27. Assumption (V1) is a richness assumption which guarantees that the
functional attains enough different values and is not ‘trapped’ in a linear subspace
of Rk . The Assumptions (V2) and (V3) provide enough regularity for the function
h appearing in (1.8). If for all y ∈ O the mapping x 7→ V (x, y) is continuously differentiable, Assumption (V3) holds, as long as the partial derivatives are dominated
by an integrable function. For an illustration see Theorem A.7 and Example A.8
from the appendix.
For the scoring function S and the functions S̄(·, F ) : A → R, x 7→ S̄(x, F ) we also
require the same regularity assumptions as in [16]:
Assumption (S1). For every F ∈ F the mapping S̄(·, F ) is continuously differentiable.
Assumption (S2). For every F ∈ F the mapping S̄(·, F ) is continuously differentiable and the gradient is locally Lipschitz continuous. Furthermore, S̄(·, F ) is
twice continuously differentiable at t = T (F ) ∈ int(A).
Using these assumptions, we prove the first version of Osband’s principle, which is
concerned with the connection between S̄(·, F ) and V̄ (·, F ).
Theorem 1.28 (Fissler and Ziegel [16, Thm. 3.2]). Let F be a convex class of
distribution functions on O ⊆ Rd and T : F → A ⊆ Rk a surjective elicitable
and identifiable functional with strict F-identification function V and strictly Fconsistent scoring function S. Assuming (V1) and (S1), there exists a function
h : int(A) → Rk×k such that
∂l S̄(x, F ) =

k
X

hlm (x)V̄m (x, F )

m=1

holds for all x ∈ int(A) and F ∈ F. If additionally (V2) holds, then h is continuous
and if (V3) and (S2) also hold, then h is locally Lipschitz continuous.
Proof. Following the proof of [16], we need to show two things: Firstly, we prove the
existence of a function h which only depends on x ∈ int(A). Secondly, we establish
continuity of h under Assumption (V2) and local Lipschitz continuity under the
Assumptions (V3) and (S2).
To show the existence of h, fix l ∈ {1, . . . , k} and x ∈ int(A). Using the identifiability
of T , the strict F-consistency of S and Assumption (S1), we have for all F ∈ F the
implications
V̄ (x, F ) = 0 ⇒ x = T (F ) ⇒ ∇S̄(x, F ) = 0,
(1.9)
since T (F ) is the local and global minimum of the continuously differentiable function S̄(·, F ). Invoking (V1), there exist F1 , . . . , Fk+1 ∈ F such that
0 ∈ int(conv(V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk+1 )))

(1.10)

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

16

holds and thus the matrix (V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk+1 )) ∈ Rk×k+1 has maximal rank
k. If it had rank j < k, then its columns would span a linear subspace of Rk having
dimension j, a contradiction to (1.10). Now let G ∈ F be arbitrary and define the
matrix
VG := (V̄ (x, G), V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk+1 )) ∈ Rk×k+2 ,
which also has full rank k. Moreover, if we consider matrices as linear mappings,
the matrix VG has the same kernel as the matrix


∂l S̄(x, G) ∂l S̄(x, F1 ) . . . ∂l S̄(x, Fk+1 )
WG :=
∈ Rk+1×k+2 .
VG
To show this, observe that by the definition of WG and ignoring its first row, we
immediately get ker(WG ) ⊆ ker(VG ). Moreover, the kernels of both matrices have
to be true subspaces of Rk+2 since they map into the spaces Rk and Rk+1 . Therefore,
in order to show the other inclusion, take
Pθ ∈ ker(VG )\{0} which satisfies θi ≥ 0
for all i = 1, . . . , k + 2. If we define σ := k+2
i=1 θi , convexity of F gives
∂l S̄(x, G)θ1 +

k+1
X

k+1

∂l S̄(x, Fi )θi+1 = σ∂l S̄

X θi+1
θ1
Fi
x, G +
σ
σ

!
= 0,

i=1

i=1

where the last equality uses the Implication (1.9) and the fact that θ ∈ ker(VG ),
which implies
!
k+1
X
θ1
θi+1
σ V̄ x, G +
Fi = VG θ = 0.
σ
σ
i=1

Consequently, we obtain that all elements of ker(VG ) with nonnegative components
are contained in ker(WG ). Now let θ ∈ ker(VG ) be arbitrary. Due to (1.10),
there exists a linear combination of V̄ (x, G), V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk+1 ) which is zero
and the coefficients of this linear combination can be chosen strictly positive (for
a constructive proof, see Lemma A.2). This gives a θ∗ ∈ ker(VG ) having strictly
positive components. Scaling θ∗ with a real-valued number r > 0 such that θ + rθ∗
has nonnegative components gives θ + rθ∗ ∈ ker(WG ) by the above arguments.
Hence, WG θ = WG (θ + rθ∗ ) = 0 and it follows that θ ∈ ker(WG ) and finally
ker(VG ) = ker(WG ).
The rank-nullity theorem for linear mappings (see Liesen and Mehrmann [36, Thm.
10.9]) gives
k + 2 = dim(Rk+2 ) = dim(im(WG )) + dim(ker(WG ))
k + 2 = dim(Rk+2 ) = dim(im(VG )) + dim(ker(VG ))
and since VG has maximal rank, dim(ker(VG )) = 2 must hold. Consequently,
dim(im(WG )) = k showing that WG has rank k. This allows us to represent the
first row of WG as a linear combination of all other rows. Call the unique coefficients
of this linear combination hl1 (x), . . . , hlk (x). They do not depend on G, since they

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

17

must also hold for the columns 2, . . . , k + 2, which are fixed for every choice of
G ∈ F. We obtain
k
X
∂l S̄(x, G) =
hlm (x)V̄m (x, G)
m=1

and repeat the previous steps of the proof for all l = 1, . . . , k, where each l gives
a vector (hl1 (x), . . . , hlk (x)) ∈ R1×k . Concatenating all vectors to a matrix h(x) ∈
Rk×k we finally have
∇S̄(x, G) = h(x)V̄ (x, G)
(1.11)
and the first part of the theorem is proved.
To prove that more regularity can be imposed on h, let Assumption (V2) hold and
fix x ∈ int(A). Moreover, choose F1 , . . . , Fk ∈ F such that V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk )
are linearly independent, which is possible due to Assumption (V1). Define the
matrix-valued mapping
V : int(A) → Rk×k ,

z 7→ V(z) := (V̄ (z, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (z, Fk )),

(1.12)

which is continuous due to the continuity of V̄ (·, F ). The matrix V(x) is invertible
and due to Lemma A.3 there is an open neighborhood Ux of x such that V(z) is
invertible for all z ∈ Ux . Consequently, Identity (1.11) leads to a representation of
h for all z ∈ Ux given by
h(z) = (∇S̄(z, F1 ), . . . , ∇S̄(z, Fk )) V(z)−1 .

(1.13)

Since the inversion of a matrix is a continuous mapping (see Lemma A.4), we obtain
that h is continuous in every z ∈ Ux due to the assumptions imposed on S̄ and V̄ .
Finally, let Assumptions (V3) and (S2) hold, fix x ∈ int(A) and choose F1 , . . . , Fk ∈
F such that V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk ) are linearly independent. Defining V as in (1.12)
and performing the same steps as in the previous part of the proof, we again arrive
at the Representation (1.13) of h for all points in a neighborhood Ux of x. Now
let UxS be an open neighborhood of x such that for all i = 1, . . . , k the mapping
z 7→ ∇S̄(z, Fi ) is Lipschitz continuous in UxS . Similarly, take an open set UxV
containing x such that the mapping z 7→ V(z)−1 is Lipschitz continuous in UxV .
This is possible since V is continuously differentiable and inverting a matrix is a
continuously differentiable operation by Lemma A.4. Consequently, we obtain that
h is Lipschitz continuous in the open set Ux ∩UxS ∩UxV , which shows that h is locally
Lipschitz continuous.
Remark 1.29. Note that the function h provided by Theorem 1.28 is uniquely
determined. To see this, recall that h is defined using the unique coefficients
hl1 (x), . . . , hlk (x) in the previous proof.
In order to complete this subsection, we consider how the function h of Theorem 1.28
behaves under the revelation principle stated in Proposition 1.21. The result is the
following corollary, which is mentioned in [15, Remark 3.6] without proof.

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

18

Corollary 1.30. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.28 hold, and for A0 ⊆ Rk let
g : A → A0 be a continuously differentiable bijection. Moreover, define the functional
Tg := g ◦ T and the functions Sg and Vg in the same way as in Proposition 1.21.
Then there exists a matrix-valued function hg such that for all x0 ∈ int(A0 ) and
F ∈ F we have
k
X
∂l S̄g (x0 , F ) =
(hg )lm (x0 ) (V̄g )m (x0 , F ),
m=1

where hg relates to the function h of Theorem 1.28 via
(hg )lm (x0 ) =

k
X

∂l (g −1 )i (x0 ) him (g −1 (x0 )).

i=1

Proof. The revelation principle as stated in Proposition 1.21 implies that Tg is
elicitable and identifiable whenever T is. Furthermore, let h be the function of
Theorem 1.28. Differentiating S̄g (·, F ) with respect to the component l using the
chain rule of calculus gives
∂l S̄g (x0 , F ) =

=

k
X
i=1
k
X

∂i S̄(g −1 (x0 ), F ) ∂l (g −1 )i (x0 )
k
X

∂l (g −1 )i (x0 )him (g −1 (x0 )) V̄m (g −1 (x0 ), F )

m=1 i=1

x0

int(A0 )

for any ∈
and F ∈ F. From this we obtain the first formula of the corollary
and since the function hg is unique, it must have the claimed representation.

1.3.2

Pointwise version of Osband’s principle

This subsection shows that Equation (1.8) also holds pointwise, i.e. with F replaced
by y. The result is the second version of Osband’s principle, which directly connects
the functions S and V . In order to prove it, two further assumptions, which are
also given in Fissler and Ziegel [15], have to be added.
Assumption (F1). For every y ∈ O there exists a sequence (Fn )n∈N ⊂ F of
distributions which converges weakly to the Dirac-measure δy and such that for all
n ∈ N the support of Fn is contained in a compact set K ⊆ O.
Assumption (VS1). The complement of the set
C := {(x, y) ∈ A × O | V (x, ·) and S(x, ·) are continuous at y}
has (k + d)-dimensional Lebesgue-measure zero.
Besides, we add another condition on the function V . This assumption is not
mentioned in [15], but we think that it is necessary in order to prove the next
theorem. We refer to Subsection 1.3.3 for a detailed discussion. The assumption is
the following:

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

19

Assumption (B1). The function V is locally bounded.
The next theorem is a version of [16, Prop. 3.4] with two modifications. At first,
we add Assumption (B1) for reasons explained in Subsection 1.3.3. Secondly, it is
required in [16] that int(A) is a star domain instead of a hyperrectangle, see also
Remark 1.32.
Theorem 1.31. Let F be convex, assume that int(A) ⊆ Rk is a hyperrectangle
and let T : F → A be a surjective elicitable and identifiable functional with strict
F-identification function V and strictly F-consistent scoring function S. Suppose
assumptions (V1), (V2), (S1), (F1), (VS1), (B1), and 1.6 hold. Then for almost
all (x, y) ∈ A × O the function S is of the form
S(x, y) =

k X
k Z
X

xr

hrm (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , v, zr+1 , . . . , zk )

(1.14)

r=1 m=1 zr

×Vm (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , v, zr+1 , . . . , zk , y) dv + a(y),
where (z1 , . . . , zk ) ∈ int(A) and a : O → R is some F-integrable function and h is
the unique matrix-valued function provided by Theorem 1.28. On the level of the
expected score S̄(x, F ), Equation (1.14) holds for all x ∈ int(A) and all F ∈ F.
Remark 1.32. As mentioned above, [16, Prop. 3.4] require int(A) to be a star
domain and z ∈ int(A) to be a star point. Looking at the representation of S,
we see that all integrals evaluate h and V on line segments between the points
(x1 , . . . , xr−1 , zr , zr+1 , . . . , zk ) and (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , xr , zr+1 , . . . , zk ) for r ∈ {1, . . . , k}.
These lines are edges of a hyperrectangle which is defined by the two corners x and
z, see also Figure 1.1 for an illustration. Consequently, we think that it is insufficient
to work with a star domain int(A) since such a domain does not necessarily contain
all hyperrectangles spanned by its points. Since h, V and S might not be defined
outside of int(A), Representation (1.14) might be invalid and thus we propose to
assume that int(A) is a hyperrectangle. Nevertheless, we think that the result can
also be proved if int(A) is a star domain or more generally path-connected. In this
case we need to integrate along paths instead of line segments which increases the
complexity of (1.14) and makes it difficult to apply the theorem. Hence, we do not
pursue this approach.
Proof. We proceed similar to [15]. At first, Assumption 1.6 ensures that V (·, y) is
locally integrable for all y ∈ O. Hence, select some point z ∈ int(A) and define the
function H : int(A) × O → R via
H(x, y) :=

k X
k Z
X

xr

hrm (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , v, zr+1 , . . . , zk )

r=1 m=1 zr

×Vm (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , v, zr+1 , . . . , zk , y) dv,

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

20

c2

(x01 , z2 )

c2

(z1 , z2 )

c3

(x1 , x2 )

(x1 , x2 , x3 )

(x1 , z2 )

(x1 , x2 , z3 )

c1

c1

(x01 , x02 )
(z1 , z2 , z3 )

(x1 , z2 , z3 )

Figure 1.1: Illustration of Theorem 1.31. The solid lines are the edges along which
the integrals in (1.14) are calculated, in the two-dimensional and three-dimensional
situation. The label ci represents the i-th coordinate. The dashed or dotted lines
illustrate the cuboid which is spanned by (z1 , z2 , z3 ) and (x1 , x2 , x3 ).
where h is the continuous matrix-valued function from Theorem 1.28. The next step
is to show continuity of H(x, ·). Let the set C be defined as in Assumption (VS1)
and note that (x, y) ∈ C c does not guarantee continuity of H(x, ·) in y. Hence,
define the set Ay := {x ∈ A | S(x, ·) or V (x, ·) not continuous in y} for any y ∈ O
and notice that x ∈ Ay ⇔ (x, y) ∈ C c holds true. Consequently, there is a set N ⊂ O
having Lebesgue measure zero such that for all y ∈ N c the set Ay is a Lebesgue null
set. We thus select (x0 , y0 ) ∈ C c such that y0 ∈ N c is satisfied and observe that the
functions S(x, ·) and V (x, ·) are continuous in y0 for a.e. x ∈ A and in particular
for x = x0 . The values s ∈ R such that (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , s, xr+1 , . . . , xk )> ∈ Ay0
is satisfied form a null set for a.e. x ∈ A, hence, we have for a.e. x ∈ A that
Vm (x1 , . . . , xr−1 , s, xr+1 , . . . , xk , ·) is continuous in y0 for a.e. s ∈ R and m, r ∈
{1, . . . , k}.
We continue by proving that H(x, ·) is continuous in y0 for a.e. x ∈ int(A) and
locally bounded for all x ∈ int(A). At first observe that by Assumption (B1) and
the continuity of h, for any two compact sets K1 ⊂ A and K2 ⊂ O we have that
|hrm (x)Vm (x, y)| ≤ M < ∞

for r, m ∈ {1, . . . , k} and (x, y) ∈ K1 × K2 . (1.15)

Hence, for any x ∈ int(A) we have that H(x, ·) is bounded on compacts. To show
continuity, we choose a sequence (yn )n∈N which is contained in a compact neighborhood of y0 and satisfies yn → y0 as n → ∞. For a.e. x ∈ int(A) we have
hrm (x)Vm (x, yn ) → hrm (x)Vm (x, y0 ) due to the choice of y0 and the arguments following it. Using (1.15) again, we see that the sequence (hrm (x)Vm (x, yn ))n∈N is
bounded by a constant if x is in a compact set. Since all integrals belonging to H
are taken over compact sets, dominated convergence implies H(x, yn ) → H(x, y0 )
for a.e. x ∈ int(A) as n → ∞.

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

21

The final step of the proof is to pass from S̄(x, F ) to S(x, y0 ). Using a telescoping
argument, we obtain for all x ∈ int(A), F ∈ F
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(z, F ) =

=

k
X

S̄(x1 , . . . , xr , zr+1 , . . . , zk , F )
r=1
k Z xr
X

− S̄(x1 , . . . , xr−1 , zr , . . . , zk , F )

∂r S̄(x1 , . . . , xr−1 , v, zr+1 , . . . , zk , F ) dv

r=1

(1.16)

zr

= H̄(x, F )
due to Osband’s principle 1.28 and the Fubini-Tonelli theorem. Employing Assumption (F1) gives a sequence (Fn )n∈N ⊂ F which converges weakly to δy0 and the support of this sequence lies in some compact set K. We use a Skorohod representation
(see Theorem A.1) to get a probability space (Ω, A , P) such that Yn , Y : Ω → O
are random variables which satisfy Yn =d Fn under P, Y ≡ y0 and Yn → Y for
n → ∞ almost surely. Next, we apply the continuous mapping theorem for almost sure convergence (see for instance van der Vaart [44, Thm. 2.3]). Let DS,H
be a measurable set which contains all discontinuities of S(x, ·) and H(x, ·), which
means it cannot include y0 . Consequently, we have P(Y ∈ DS,H ) = δy0 (DS,H ) = 0,
implying S(x, Yn ) → S(x, y0 ) and H(x, Yn ) → H(x, y0 ) almost surely and for a.e.
x ∈ int(A). Since S(x, ·) and H(x, ·) are locally bounded, they are bounded on the
compact set K in which the Yn take values a.s. and hence dominated convergence
implies ES(x, Yn ) → S(x, y0 ) and EH(x, Yn ) → H(x, y0 ) for n → ∞.
The sequence E(S(x, Yn ) − H(x, Yn )) = S̄(x, Fn ) − H̄(x, Fn ) is equal to S̄(z, Fn )
by Equation (1.16) and thus does not depend on x. Therefore, the limit is also
independent of x and we may define the function a via
a(y0 ) := lim E(S(x, Yn ) − H(x, Yn )) = S(x, y0 ) − H(x, y0 ).
n→∞

Since S(x, Yn ) = H(x, Yn ) + (S(x, Yn ) − H(x, Yn )) and both sides must have the
same limit, the Representation (1.14) holds for our choice of y0 . Finally, we repeat
all previous steps for different y0 and this gives the identity a(y) = S(x, y) − H(x, y)
for a.e. y ∈ O, implying that a is an F-integrable function.

1.3.3

Examples showing the necessity of Assumption (B1)

This section contains two examples which are designed to show that Assumption (B1) or related assumptions are needed to prove Theorem 1.31. The crucial
point in the proof is the local boundedness of H(x, ·). Assumption 1.6 ensures that
V (x, ·) is locally bounded for all x ∈ A. However, H(x, ·) contains an integral of
such a function. Therefore, it remains unclear how local boundedness of H(x, ·)
can be ensured without using (B1) or a similar statement. The first example proves
that integration over a family of bounded functions does not always lead to a locally
bounded function.

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

22

Example 1.33. Define the function f : (0, 1] × [0, 1] → R via
f (x, y) =

1
xy

1[0,1) (y),

where 1 represents the indicator function. The function f (x, ·) is displayed in Figure 1.2 for different values of x. For any x ∈ (0, 1] the mapping y 7→ f (x, y) is
bounded and for any y ∈ [0, 1] it holds that x 7→ f (x, y) is integrable. Hence, we
define the integrated function
Z 1
f (x, y) dx.
F : [0, 1] → R, y 7→ F (y) :=

5

0

1

2

f(x, y)
3

4

x = 0.2
x = 0.4
x = 0.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

y

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 1.2: Plot of the function f (x, y) from Example 1.33 for different values of x.
F fails to be locally bounded, which becomes obvious by calculating it explicitly.
For y = 1 the function f vanishes and so we have F (1) = 0. For all other values of
y we obtain
Z 1
x=1
1
1
1
1−y
F (y) =
=
dx =
x
,
y
1−y
1−y
0 x
x=0
which immediately shows that F fails to be bounded on all compact intervals [a, 1]
for 0 ≤ a < 1.

The second example shows that integration over a family of bounded continuous
functions does not necessarily lead to a continuous function. Consequently, it is
unclear how continuity of H(x, ·) at y0 can be secured without employing Assumption (B1) or a similar statement.
Example 1.34. Define the function f : (0, 1] × R → R via


1
y
y
−
1[x/2,x] (y).
f (x, y) := 2 1[0,x/2) (y) +
x
x x2

1.3. OSBAND’S PRINCIPLE

23

This is a family of hat functions, which is displayed in Figure 1.3 for some values
of x. For any x ∈ (0, 1] the mapping y 7→ f (x, y) is bounded and continuous, and
for any y ∈ R we see that x 7→ f (x, y) is integrable. As in the previous example, we
define the integrated function F via
Z 1
f (x, y) dx.
F : R → R, y 7→ F (y) :=
0

0.0

0.5

f(x, y)
1.0

1.5

x = 0.3
x = 0.6
x=1

−0.2

0.0

0.2

y

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 1.3: Plot of the function f (x, y) from Example 1.34 for different values of x.
F fails to be continuous in 0, which is shown by calculating the integral. For any
y ≤ 0 or y ≥ 1 the function f (x, y) vanishes and therefore F is zero for these values
of y. For 0 < y < 1/2 we calculate
Z

1

F (y) =
2y

y
dx +
x2

2y

Z
y

1
y
y
−
dx = −
x x2
x

x=1

+ ln(x) +
x=2y

y
x

x=2y

= −y + ln(2),

x=y

and similarly for 1/2 ≤ y < 1 we obtain
Z
F (y) =
y

1

1
y
y
−
dx = ln(x) +
x x2
x

All in all, we have the representation

 −y + ln(2),
y − ln(y) − 1,
F (y) =

0,
which shows that F is not continuous at y = 0.

x=1

= y − ln(y) − 1.

x=y

if y ∈ (0, 1/2]
if y ∈ (1/2, 1)
else


Chapter 2

Applications of elicitability
This chapter presents three areas in the field of mathematical statistics where elicitability, and sometimes also identifiability, plays a central role. These three topics include parameter estimation, generalized regression, and forecast comparison.
They are included in order to show why the concept of elicitability plays a nontrivial role in statistics and has attracted attention by researchers. However, the
sections contain only short introductions to the mentioned concepts. In the following, if not stated otherwise, all random variables are defined on a measure space
(Ω, A , P).

2.1

Forecast comparison

This section considers a decision maker who needs information concerning a realvalued (or Rd -valued) random variable Y which has some unknown distribution
function F ∈ F. To get this information, the decision maker asks several forecasters who can form an opinion about the distribution of Y for their best forecasts.
After some assessment of the quality of their forecasts, the forecasters are rewarded
with money. While the forecasters’ aim is to maximize the expected payoff, the
decision maker wants to obtain the most accurate forecast.
Stated more technically, n forecasters issue reports R1 , . . . , Rn which are compared
to a realization y of Y using a scoring function S. The scoring function is chosen by
the decision maker and determines which forecasts are the best or most accurate. If
Rj and Ri satisfy S(Rj , y) < S(Ri , y), the forecast Rj is considered better than Ri
and the j-th forecaster’s payoff is higher than the i-th forecaster’s payoff. Hence,
forecasters who minimize their (expected) score maximize their (expected) payoff.
We begin by introducing probabilistic forecasting, a setting for which elicitability is
irrelevant. Nevertheless, we consider it in order to understand how the necessity for
elicitability emerges when moving from probabilistic forecasting to point forecasting.
At the end of this section, we show the relevance of elicitability in deciding between
different point forecasts.

24

2.1. FORECAST COMPARISON

2.1.1

25

Probabilistic forecasting

This subsection is a short introduction to probabilistic forecasting based on material of Gneiting and Raftery [25]. In the setting of probabilistic forecasting, each
forecaster reports a probability measure P ∈ P, where P is a convex class of probability measures on the measurable space (Ω, A ). The forecasts are rated using a
scoring rule S : P × Ω → R. As introduced in Section 1.1, a measurable function
G : Ω → R is called P-integrableR if it is integrable with respect to all P ∈ P and we
use Ḡ(P ) as short notation for Ω G(ω) dP (ω).
One problem which the decision maker wants to avoid is that the forecasters do not
report the probability measure they assume to be correct. This could be because
other probability measures maximize their expected payoff. In order to incentivize
the forecasters to report truthfully, the decision maker should communicate the
scoring rule which is used for payoff calculation to the forecasters. Moreover, this
scoring rule should be proper. Propriety means for the forecasters that the minimization of the expected score (which is equivalent to the maximization of the
expected payoff) is achieved by reporting the probability measure they believe in.
The mathematical definition according to [25] is the following.
Definition 2.1. A scoring rule is any real-valued function S : P × Ω → R such that
for all P ∈ P the mapping ω 7→ S(P, ω) is P-integrable. The scoring rule S is called
P-proper if S̄(Q, Q) ≤ S̄(P, Q) holds for all P, Q ∈ P. It is strictly P-proper if it is
P-proper and for any P, Q ∈ P the equality S̄(Q, Q) = S̄(P, Q) implies Q = P .
Remark 2.2. The definition of proper scoring rules is slightly modified to make it
consistent with scoring functions as in Definition 1.1. In particular, the orientation
of the scoring rules is changed, i.e. we look at minima instead of maxima. Moreover,
[25] only require S to be quasi-integrable, meaning that it can take values in R̄ :=
R ∪ {−∞, ∞}. Hence, a definition of regular scoring rules is added in [25] which is
not needed here.
Definition 2.3. Let G : P → R be a convex function. A function G∗ (P, ·) : Ω → R
is called a subtangent of G in the point P ∈ P if it is P-integrable and satisfies
Z
G(Q) ≥ G(P ) +
G∗ (P, ω) d(Q − P )(ω)
(2.1)
Ω

for all Q ∈ P.
Using the subtangent definition, it is possible to completely characterize all proper
scoring rules. The following characterization is due to Gneiting and Raftery [25,
Thm. 1] and its proof is modified to fit our definition.
Theorem 2.4. A scoring rule S : P × Ω → R is (strictly) P-proper if and only if
there exists a (strictly) convex, real-valued function G : P → R such that
S(P, ω) = Ḡ∗ (P, P ) − G∗ (P, ω) − G(P )
for all P ∈ P, ω ∈ Ω and a subtangent G∗ (P, ·) : Ω → R of G at P .

(2.2)

2.1. FORECAST COMPARISON

26

Remark 2.5. Representation (2.2) shows that (strictly) proper scoring rules are
similar to (strictly) consistent scoring functions for expectations which are treated in
Example 1.8. Both functions consist of a convex function (f or G) and a ‘subtangent
term’. In the scoring function case, the subtangent inequality becomes f (r) ≥
f (s) + ∇f (s)> (r − s) and ∇f can be interpreted as the subtangent of f . In fact, the
definition of a subtangent can also be used for real-valued functions, and scoring
functions as in Example 1.8 can be defined using this concept.
Proof. Let S be as stated in the theorem and G be convex. Then S is a scoring
rule, since G∗ is per definitionem P-integrable. For any Q, P ∈ P we employ the
subtangent Inequality (2.1) and the Representation (2.2) to obtain
S̄(P, Q) = Ḡ∗ (P, P ) − Ḡ∗ (P, Q) − G(P )
= −Ḡ∗ (P, Q − P ) − G(P ) ≥ −G(Q) = S̄(Q, Q),
which shows propriety of S. If S̄(P, Q) = S̄(Q, Q) holds, we have Ḡ∗ (P, P )+G(Q) =
G(P ) + Ḡ∗ (P, Q) and this together with the subtangent property of G∗ (P, ·) leads
to




1
1
1
1
∗
G
P + Q ≥ G(P ) + Ḡ P, P + Q − P
2
2
2
2
1 ∗
1
1
= G(P ) − (Ḡ (P, P ) − Ḡ∗ (P, Q)) = G(P ) + G(Q).
2
2
2
Therefore, if G is strictly convex, we must have P = Q and hence S is strictly
P-proper whenever G is strictly convex. For the converse implication, let S be a
P-proper scoring rule and define the mapping G : P → R, P 7→ −S̄(P, P ). For all
P, Q ∈ P and λ ∈ (0, 1) we have
λG(P ) + (1 − λ)G(Q) = −λS̄(P, P ) − (1 − λ)S̄(Q, Q)
≥ −λS̄(λP + (1 − λ)Q, P ) − (1 − λ)S̄(λP + (1 − λ)Q, Q)
= −S̄(λP + (1 − λ)Q, λP + (1 − λ)Q) = G(λP + (1 − λ)Q),
so G is convex. Whenever S is strictly proper and P 6= Q, the inequality is strict
and hence G is strictly convex. Moreover, G∗ (P, ω) := −S(P, ω) is a subtangent of
G at the point P ∈ P due to the propriety of S and the fact that G(P ) = Ḡ∗ (P, P ).
Using these choices of G and G∗ the Representation (2.2) follows.
Before turning to the next subsection, we illustrate the close connection between
proper scoring rules and consistent scoring functions. For this statement we interpret distribution functions in F as probability measures on O.
Theorem 2.6 (Gneiting [23, Thm. 3]). Let S be an F-consistent scoring function
for a functional T . Then the function R : F × O → R defined via R(F, y) :=
S(T (F ), y) is an F-proper scoring rule.
The result follows immediately from the used definitions. Note that strict propriety
can only be achieved using strict consistency and an injective functional T .

2.1. FORECAST COMPARISON

2.1.2

27

The need for elicitability in point forecasting

This subsection considers point forecasting and the difference to probabilistic forecasting. In theory, there is no compelling reason why points should be used instead
of whole probability distributions, since the decision maker can always extract all
necessary information from a probabilistic forecast. However, point forecasts are
widely used in practice and one reason for this is that they are simpler and easier
to communicate.
In our setting, which is adopted from Gneiting [23], the distributions of the class
F are all defined on some observation domain O. The decision maker asks the
forecasters to report points lying in an action domain A. The scoring function
S : A × O → R is used to assess the forecasts. Similar to probabilistic forecasting
and as pointed out in [23], the decision maker has to communicate to the forecasters
how forecast accuracy is measured, to make them report truthfully. However, since
only points are allowed as forecasts, there are now two possible things the decision
maker can communicate:
1. The scoring function S. If S is chosen such that S̄(·, F ) has a unique minimum
for every F ∈ F, then the situation is similar to probabilistic forecasting. The
forecasters will maximize their expected payoff by reporting the minimum of
S̄(·, F ), where F is their subjective distribution function.
2. A functional T . The functional tells the forecasters how to translate their
opinions of the distribution F into real numbers which they can report. If
T is elicitable and S is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T , then
T (F ) is the unique minimizer of S̄(·, F ). Consequently, the forecasters will
maximize their expected payoff by reporting T (F ), where F is their subjective
distribution function.
The second point shows that elicitability of T is crucial to incentivize the forecasters
to report truthfully. It guarantees that the choices of the forecasters are in line with
the request of the decision maker. It should be remarked that this is also what the
term elicitability suggests. An elicitable functional enables the decision maker to
elicit truthful reports of the functional value. Finally, note that the possibilities
1. and 2. are equivalent solutions to the same problem. It is the decision maker’s
choice to determine which functional is needed to make good decisions or which
scoring functions captures best the losses incurred by using inaccurate forecasts.

2.1.3

Comparing forecasts using statistical tests

This subsection shows how elicitability of a functional T can be used to decide
between different forecasts for T , based on a set of realizations of Y . In the following,
we consider a situation where two forecasters issue n point forecasts (x̂t )t=1,...,n and
(ẑt )t=1,...,n . For simplicity, we assume that the times for which the forecasts are

2.1. FORECAST COMPARISON

28

made are simply t = 1, . . . , n and realizations of Y denoted by (yt )t=1,...,n are given.
Moreover, we let S be a scoring function which is strictly F-consistent for T . In
order to decide which set of forecasts is ‘better’ we can compute the mean score
difference given by
n
n
1X
1X
S(x̂t , yt ) −
S(ẑt , yt )
(2.3)
n
n
t=1

t=1

and check whether it is negative or positive. Based on a law of large numbers argument and the strict consistency of S, we can argue that a positive value supports
(ẑt ) while a negative value supports (x̂t ). However, since consistency of S is a statement about S̄(·, F ) for F ∈ F, a simple comparison of score values, which can only
be an approximation to S̄, is unpleasant. In particular, positive or negative values
in (2.3) can be sheer coincidence. This issue leads directly to statistical tests based
on the mean score difference which were introduced by Diebold and Mariano [10].
Since these Diebold-Mariano tests (DM tests in the following) are designed in [10] to
handle dependent realizations of Y , we present some concepts of time series analysis
before we return to them.
For the rest of this section, let (Yt )t∈Z be a sequence of random variables on the
probability space (Ω, A , P). For more details on the following concepts, we refer to
Shumway and Stoffer [42] as well as Durrett [11, Sec. 7.C].
Definition 2.7. A sequence of random variables (Yt )t∈Z is called strictly stationary,
if for any k ∈ N, h ∈ Z and t1 , . . . , tk ∈ Z the distributions of (Yt1 , . . . , Ytk ) and
(Yt1 +h , . . . , Ytk +h ) coincide.
Definition 2.8. For a sequence of random variables (Yt )t∈Z define the σ-algebras
t
At∞ := σ(Yt , Yt+1 , . . .) and A−∞
:= σ(Yt , Yt−1 , . . .). For k ∈ N call
t
∞
}
α(k) := sup{|P(A ∩ B) − P(A)P(B)| | t ∈ Z, A ∈ A−∞
, B ∈ At+k

the strong mixing coefficient of (Yt )t∈Z at lag k. Then (Yt )t∈Z is called strongly
mixing if α(k) → 0 for k → ∞.
Combining strict stationarity with the strong mixing condition makes it possible to
extend the classical central limit theorem from independent to dependent sequences
of random variables. Several results and conditions concerning such an extension can
be found in [11, Ch. 7] together with proofs. We confine ourselves to the following
theorem, which is a combination of [11, Thm. 7.8] and the remark thereafter.
Theorem 2.9. Let (Yt )t∈Z be a stationary and strongly mixing sequence with mixing
coefficient α and zero
Moreover, assume there is some δ > 0 such that
P∞ mean.δ/(2+δ)
2+δ
E|Yt |
< ∞ and k=1 α(k)
< ∞ hold. Then we have
σY2

:= EY0 + 2

∞
X
t=1

EY0 Yt < ∞

2.1. FORECAST COMPARISON

and if σY2 > 0 we get

29

n

1 X
√
Yt →d N (0, σY2 )
n t=1
for n → ∞.
The conditions imposed on (α(k)δ/(2+δ) )k∈N and E|Yt |2+δ imply in particular that
the sequence (EY0 Yt )t∈N converges absolutely (see for instance [11, Thm. 7.7]).
Therefore, if (Yt )t∈Z satisfies the requirements of the theorem, σY2 is the spectral
density fY of (Yt )t∈Z at zero and can be estimated consistently using estimators for
fY (0). For a discussion on consistent estimation of fY , using lag windows as well
as spectral windows, we refer to Shumway and Stoffer [42, Sec. 4.5]. If we are in
the situation of Theorem 2.9 and have a sequence of estimators (σ̂n2 )n∈N which is
consistent for σY2 (meaning σ̂n2 → σY2 in probability), we apply Slutsky’s theorem
(see for instance van der Vaart [44, Lemma 2.8]) to obtain
n

1 X
p
Yt →d N (0, 1)
σ̂n2 n t=1

(2.4)

for n → ∞. This convergence allows for tests based on asymptotic normality, even
for dependent sequences of random variables.
Returning to the forecast comparison setting we let (Yt )t∈Z be a stationary sequence
of random variables and (x̂t )t∈Z and (ẑt )t∈Z infinite sequences of forecasts. Again
we assume that we sample at the time points t = 1, . . . , n. Using the time series
DtP:= S(x̂t , Yt ) − S(ẑt , Yt ) for t ∈ Z and remembering (2.3), we define Kn :=
n
1
t=1 Dt in order to compare the two forecast sequences. If we think (ẑt ) are
n
superior forecasts, we should test the null hypothesis H0 : The forecasts (x̂t ) are at
least as good as the forecasts (ẑt ). Using scoring functions, this translates to the
hypothesis H0 : EKn ≤ 0. In order to test if (x̂t ) is superior we would naturally
reverse the inequality and for equal accuracy we would use H0 : EKn = 0.
The final step made in [10] is now to choose a sequence of estimators
(σ̂n2 )n∈N which
p
2
consistently estimates σD and to define the test statistic n/σ̂n2 Kn . Under the
assumptions of Theorem 2.9, the hypothesis EKn = 0 and using the argument in
(2.4), this test statistic is approximately normal if n is large enough. Therefore,
one- or two-sided regions of rejection can be calculated using the quantiles of the
standard normal distribution. Note that the assumption of stationarity as well as
the condition on the strong mixing coefficient in Theorem 2.9 are only necessary
for (Yt )t∈Z because both properties carry over to (Dt )t∈Z . The moment condition
E|Dt |2+δ < ∞ has to be ensured by the choice of S.

2.1.4

Remarks

The previous subsections considered forecast comparison for point and probabilistic
forecasting and the role played by elicitability. We conclude this section by also

2.1. FORECAST COMPARISON

30

looking at problems or limitations which have to be taken into account when comparing forecasts. For brevity, we only sketch the arguments.
Applicability of Diebold-Mariano tests. A DM test in the setting of the previous subsection has one important drawback: It remains unclear if Theorem 2.9 is
still applicable if the forecasting sequences (x̂t )t∈Z and (ẑt )t∈Z are not deterministic, but random. In particular, the presented framework cannot handle a situation
where the forecast for time t is calculated using Yt−1 , . . . , Yt−m for some m ∈ N,
since it is not clear how the distribution and dependence structure of (Dt )t∈Z react.
However, such an approach is quite common in practice. As stated in Giacomini
and White [22], the classical DM test compares forecasting models, not forecasting
procedures. According to the definition of [22], the latter includes the forecasting
model together with an estimation method and a choice which part of the data is
used.
An extension of the considered test to such a framework is done in [22]. The authors
consider a setting where forecasts can be measurable functions of realizations and
estimated parameters based on a finite and fixed time window in the past. They are
able to show asymptotic normality of the test statistic Kn under similar conditions
as in Theorem 2.9, see [22, Thm. 4]. Moreover, they are able to drop the stationarity condition as long as the estimator σ̂n2 is modified such that it is consistent for
non-stationary processes.
Unconditional versus conditional forecast comparison. Consider a test for
equal forecast accuracy. The hypothesis in the DM test then states that the mean
score differences have expected value equal to zero. This is equivalent to saying
that the forecast accuracy is equal on average. As pointed out in [22], this might be
inappropriate in some situations. If one forecast outperforms the other when Yt−1
was small and vice versa when Yt−1 was large, a classical DM test cannot detect
this. In contrast, the conditional tests proposed in [22] take information up to time
t into account and are designed to detect if forecast performance is predictable. Due
to this difference, the DM test considered here (which could be called unconditional
test) should only guide a decision maker in selecting a forecast for an unspecified
future date for which no information is available.
Scoring functions and ordering. Even if the integrated score function x 7→
S̄(x, F ) is considered, the inequality S̄(x, F ) < S̄(z, F ) does not imply that x is
closer (in Euclidean distance) to the true value t = T (F ), since consistency only requires S̄(·, F ) to take its minimum in t. Apart from that, there can be local minima
which cause the integrated score to be small for arbitrary values x 6= t. Therefore, the concept of (strict) order sensitivity is introduced by Lambert [35, Def. 2],
which requires S̄(·, F ) to be (strictly) decreasing for x ≤ t and (strictly) increasing
for x ≥ t. However, even this property does not exclude the problem mentioned at
the beginning. If S̄(·, F ) is very steep for x ≤ t and rather flat for x ≥ t, it is still
possible that S̄(x, F ) < S̄(z, F ) holds for z < t < x and |z − t| < |x − t|. Therefore,

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

31

the best solution to the ordering problem is probably to consider multiple scoring
functions (see also the next paragraph).
Choice of scoring function. Until now, the choice of the scoring function S was
not discussed, although there are often many possible choices. It is therefore a priori
not clear which function one should use for forecast comparison. It could be the
case, that forecaster 1 outperforms forecaster 2 for a scoring function S1 but the
opposite relation holds for another scoring function S2 . For quantiles and expectiles
(see Definitions 2.10 and 2.17) a solution is proposed by Ehm et al. [12]. For these
functionals they show that all scoring functions which satisfy certain regularity
conditions are convex combinations of a class of extremal functions. These extremal
functions are simple and can be parametrized by θ ∈ R. As a consequence, they
propose to plot the scores of the extremal functions for some interval in order to
perform a graphical check if one forecaster dominates the other for all parameters.
If one forecast is more accurate for all extremal functions, the same holds true for
the whole class of scoring functions under consideration.

2.2

Quantile and expectile regression

This section introduces quantiles and expectiles of distribution functions and shows
how least squares regression can be generalized using these characteristics together
with strictly consistent scoring functions. Moreover, both concepts are used to
define measures of risk in the next chapter, see Subsections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3.

2.2.1

Quantile regression

Quantiles are closely connected to distribution functions. For a value α ∈ (0, 1), the
α-quantile of a random variable is the threshold which is exceeded with probability
1 − α or less. Hence, it can be interpreted as the inverse of the distribution function
and in certain cases this is indeed true. For general distribution functions the
definition is as follows.
Definition 2.10. For a univariate distribution function F and α ∈ (0, 1) define the
functions
F ← : (0, 1) → R,
F

→

: (0, 1) → R,

α 7→ inf{x ∈ R | F (x) ≥ α},
α 7→ inf{x ∈ R | F (x) > α}

and call the first lower and the second upper quantile function of F . Moreover, any
element of the interval [F ← (α), F → (α)] is called an α-quantile of F . If F ← (α) =
F → (α) = x holds, x is the unique α-quantile of F .
The main focus of this section lies on the lower quantile function. The upper quantile
function is needed if it is convenient to use the set of quantiles [F ← (α), F → (α)]. If
F is strictly increasing, both functions coincide and every quantile is unique. The

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

32

following lemma lists some well-known properties of quantile functions which are
needed below.
Lemma 2.11. For α ∈ (0, 1), x ∈ R and distribution functions F and G the
following hold:
(i) F ← (α) ≤ x ⇔ α ≤ F (x).
(ii) F (F ← (α)) ≥ α with equality if F is continuous.
(iii) F ← (F (x)) ≤ x with equality if F is strictly increasing.
(iv) F ← is left-continuous and F → is right-continuous.
(v) If X =d F and g(X) =d G for an increasing left-continuous function g, then
G← (α) = g(F ← (α)).
Proof. The first three properties are checked straightforward, see for instance van
der Vaart [44, Lemma 21.1]. For (iv) and (v) see McNeil et al. [37, Prop. A.3,
A.5].
Remark 2.12. Looking at the properties (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 2.11, we see that
F ← and F → are the usual inverse function of F if F is continuous and strictly
increasing everywhere.
In Chapter 1 it is shown that expectations and ratios of expectations are elicitable.
The next step is to prove the same for quantiles. In contrast to previous examples,
we cannot represent the α-quantile q of F via an expectation. However, if F is
continuous and Y is a random variable such that Y =d F under P, the equation
E1{Y ≤x} = F (x) = α
is solved by any [F ← (α), F → (α)]. For classes F of continuous distributions having unique α-quantiles this fact can be used to construct the oriented strict Fidentification function V (x, y) = 1{y≤x} − α. Continuity is vital for this statement because the next example shows that for a convex class F which contains
a continuous distribution and a specific Dirac measure there cannot exist a strict
F-identification function.
Example 2.13. Let α ∈ (0, 1) and a convex F be given and let V be a strict
F-identification function for T (F ) := F ← (α). Assume that there exists an F ∈ F
which is continuous in F ← (α). Furthermore, suppose there is an ε > 0 such that
q := F ← (α + ε) is well defined and δq ∈ F. We define Fλ := λF + (1 − λ)δq with
λ < α/(α + ε) and observe that
Fλ (q−) = λF (q) <

α
(α + ε) = α
α+ε

and Fλ (q) = λ(α + ε) + (1 − λ) > α

hold, hence Fλ← (α) = q. This leads to
0 = V̄ (q, Fλ ) = λV̄ (q, F ) + (1 − λ)V (q, q) = λV̄ (q, F ),

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

33

since all quantiles of δq are q, implying V (q, q) = V̄ (q, δq ) = 0. Because V is a strict
identification function, we obtain q = F ← (α) < F ← (α + ε), a contradiction.

Although strict identification functions may not exist for certain classes F, it is
possible to construct a strictly consistent scoring function, as the following theorem
shows. It is well-known and similar results are stated in Gneiting [24, 23] without
proofs, hence we add our own proof. Note that the result does not need F to be
continuous, but requires that the α-quantile is unique instead.
Theorem 2.14. Fix α ∈ (0, 1) and let F be a class of distribution functions having
unique α-quantiles. Then the functional T : F → R, F 7→ F ← (α) is elicitable with
respect to F. An F-consistent scoring function for T is given by
S(x, y) := (1{y≤x} − α)(g(x) − g(y))
for any F-integrable increasing function g. If g is strictly increasing, then S is
strictly consistent.
Remark 2.15. Under additional assumptions it is also possible to show that all
strictly consistent scoring functions for the α-quantile can be represented as in
Theorem 2.14, see also Remark 1.10. Again we refer to [24] for details.
Proof. Fix α ∈ (0, 1), F ∈ F and let Y =d F under P. Moreover, let g be an
increasing and F-integrable function (this is always possible, for example by choosing a bounded g) and set t := T (F ) = F ← (α). Firstly, define the left-hand limit
F (t−) := lims%t F (s) and observe that F (t−) ≤ α due to the definition of t. Consequently, the inequality
α + P(Y = t) − F (t) = α − P(Y < t) = α − F (t−) ≥ 0

(2.5)

holds. Now fix any x ∈ R such that x < t and calculate
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = (F (x) − α)g(x) − (F (t) − α)g(t) + E(1{Y ≤t} − 1{Y ≤x} )g(Y )
= (F (x) − α)g(x) − (F (t) − α)g(t)
+ E1{x<Y <t} g(Y ) + P(Y = t)g(t)
≥ (F (x) − α + P(x < Y < t))g(x)

(2.6)

− (F (t) − α − P(Y = t))g(t)
= (α − F (t) + P(Y = t))(g(t) − g(x)) ≥ 0

(2.7)

using Inequality (2.5) and the monotonicity of g. If we have x > t, then
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = (F (x) − α)g(x) − (F (t) − α)g(t) − E1{t<Y ≤x} g(Y )
≥ (F (x) − α)g(x) − (F (t) − α)g(t) − (F (x) − F (t))g(x)
= (F (t) − α)(g(x) − g(t)) ≥ 0,

(2.8)

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

34

so S is F-consistent. Now we check if the inequalities are strict as soon as g is
strictly increasing. We start with the second display and assume that equality
holds for every line. Then we have F (t) = α as well as P(t < Y < x) = 0 due to the
strict monotonicity of g and the fact that (2.8) is an equality. This implies that for
z := (x + t)/2 we have
α = F (t) = P(Y ≤ t) + P(t < Y ≤ z) = F (z),
which is a contradiction to the uniqueness of the α-quantile. We now turn to the
first display and distinguish two possible cases for the limit F (t−). Considering α >
F (t−), we have a strict inequality in (2.5) and together with the strict monotonicity
of g the inequality in (2.7) is strict. If we suppose α = F (t−) and equality in (2.6),
the latter implies P(x < Y < t) = 0. As a consequence we have for z := (x + t)/2
α = P(Y < t) = P(Y ≤ z) + P(z < Y < t) = F (z),
which is again a contradiction to F ← (α) = t > z. Since we discussed all cases, S is
a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T if g is strictly increasing.
The following example shows why the uniqueness of the α-quantile is essential for
Theorem 2.14 to hold. Moreover, it shows a way to drop this requirement by slightly
modifying the definition of elicitability.
Example 2.16. Define a distribution function G on the interval [− 12 , 1] via its
density φG , which is given by
φG (x) := 1[− 1 ,0) (x) + 1[ 1 ,1] (x).
2

2

Loosely speaking, G represents a uniform distribution having a gap in the middle.
For α = 12 , any q ∈ [0, 21 ] satisfies G(q) = 12 and is thus an 21 -quantile. Choosing
a strictly increasing g and defining the scoring function S as in Theorem 2.14, the
identity S̄(0, G) = S̄(q, G) holds for any q ∈ [0, 12 ]. Hence, S is only F-consistent,
but not strictly F-consistent if G ∈ F.
A possible solution to this problem is the modification of the functional and the
scoring functions such that both are set-valued. This modification is used and
discussed in Gneiting [23] and Fissler and Ziegel [16, Remark 2.3], among others.
To be more precise, fix α ∈ (0, 1) and define the quantile functional for the α-quantile
via
T : F → P(R), F 7→ [F ← (α), F → (α)]
such that the functional now maps F to the whole set of α-quantiles. A function
S is now considered strictly F-consistent if for any t ∈ T (F ), x ∈ R, we have
S̄(x, F ) ≥ S̄(t, F ) and the equality S̄(x, F ) = S̄(t, F ) implies x ∈ T (F ). Using
this definition, the scoring function S of Theorem 2.14 is again strictly F-consistent
if g is strictly increasing. In order to show this, we fix α ∈ (0, 1), choose any
t ∈ T (F ) = [F ← (α), F → (α)] and x ∈
/ T (F ) and perform the same calculations for

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

35

S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) as in the proof of Theorem 2.14. Since (2.5) continues to hold
for any t ∈ T (F ), we obtain consistency. To see that even strict consistency holds,
we inspect the occurring inequalities again: We assume t < x and suppose that
equality holds in the second display, which in particular implies P(t < Y < x) = 0
due to (2.8). Hence, for all ε > 0 satisfying ε < x − t we have F (x − ε) = F (t) = α,
which is a contradiction to x ∈
/ T (F ). Now assume that t > x holds and note that
the inequality α > F (t−) can only occur if t = F ← (α), so in this case the argument
is the same as above and Inequality (2.7) is strict. Therefore, assume α = F (t−)
and observe that equality in (2.6) implies P(x < Y < t) = 0. Consequently,
F (t − ε) = F (t−) = α holds for all ε > 0 satisfying ε < t − x, which is again a
contradiction to x ∈
/ T (F ).

Having established elicitability of quantiles, we now consider an application of this
property in regression. We begin with considering linear regression. To this end,
let Y be a real-valued and X an Rp -valued random variable. The basic concept of
linear regression is based on modelling the mean of the random variable Y | X = x
as a linear function in x, that is E(Y | X = x) = x> β for some β ∈ Rp which has
to be estimated. To compute this based on data sets y ∈ Rk and x ∈ Rk×p , the
optimization problem
k
X
2
min
(yi − x>
(2.9)
i β)
β

i=1

is solved for an optimal β ∗ . Using the theory of Chapter 1, we see why it makes
sense to do so. As shown in Example 1.8, the function S(x, y) := (y − x)2 is a
strictly F-consistent scoring function if the distributions in F have finite second
moments. Consequently, Equation (2.9) states that β is selected by minimizing the
expected score using a scoring function which is strictly consistent for the mean. It is
therefore natural to use this minimization problem and choose the scoring function
according to the functional we want to apply to the distribution Y | X = x.
One famous example of this approach is quantile regression, which is introduced
in Koenker and Bassett [33] and compiled in Koenker [32]. To illustrate the idea,
choose α ∈ (0, 1) and a strictly consistent scoring function S in order to model the
α-quantile of Y | X = x via x> β. Using Theorem 2.14, the minimization of the
empirical score can be stated as
min
β

k
X
(1{yi ≤x> β} − α)(g(x>
i β) − g(yi ))
i

(2.10)

i=1

for a strictly increasing function g. Choosing α = 12 replaces mean regression by
median regression, which is a rather old idea to decrease the sensitivity to outliers
(see [32, Sec. 1.2]).
The following paragraph discusses some basics of quantile regression. The first
problem which lies in replacing (2.9) by (2.10) is the method of solving the minimization problem. The scoring functions for quantiles are more complicated than

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

36

quadratic functions and in particular not differentiable. This problem is tackled in
[32, Sec. 1.3] by choosing g(x) = x, which leads to the ‘pinball’ scoring function.
The minimization problem for linear quantile regression becomes
X
X
min (1 − α)
|yi − x>
β|
+
α
|yi − x>
i
i β|,
β

{yi ≤x>
i β}

{yi >x>
i β}

which can be efficiently solved using linear programming techniques. After the
calculation of β ∗ becomes computationally cheap, quantile regression can be used
to get a more detailed impression of a dataset. For example, regression coefficients
and plots of regression lines (or curves) can be inspected for different choices of
α. It can then be compared how the center as well as the lower and upper tail of
the distribution Y | X = x vary. Another nice property of quantile regression is
equivariance with respect to an increasing bijection h. This means that if the data
y ∈ Rk is transformed using h, the estimator β ∗ is transformed accordingly. For
instance, if quantile regression is performed and x>
i β̂ is interpreted as the α-quantile
of h(Y ) | X = xi , Lemma 2.11 (v) states that it is reasonable to interpret h−1 (x>
i β̂)
as the α-quantile of Y | X = xi . For details we refer to [32, Sec. 2.2.3].

2.2.2

Expectile regression

Expectiles can be understood as generalizations of quantiles, but simultaneously
the mean can also be obtained as a special case. Their definition as well as their
name are due to Newey and Powell [38], who introduce them in order to define
an asymmetric version of the least squares estimation method for linear regression.
Using the asymmetric least squares coefficients, they test the error distribution for
symmetry and homoscedasticity. Apart from this application, expectiles are also
used in risk management, see Chapter 3.
Definition 2.17. Let F be a distribution function having a finite first moment.
Then for τ ∈ (0, 1) an x ∈ R satisfying
Z ∞
Z x
τ
y − x dF (y) = (1 − τ )
x − y dF (y)
(2.11)
x

−∞

is called a τ -expectile of F and denoted via eτ (F ).
Lemma 2.18. For τ ∈ (0, 1) and F having finite expectation there is exactly one
τ -expectile.
Proof. This proof follows [38, Thm. 1]. Fix τ ∈ (0, 1), F having finite first moments
and let Y be a random variable on (Ω, A , P) such that Y =d F . Define the functions
G1 , G2 : R → R+ via
G1 (x) := E1(x,∞) (Y )(Y − x)

and G2 (x) := E1(−∞,x) (Y )(x − Y )

in order to represent the left- and right-hand side of Equation (2.11). Now fix x ∈ R
and let (xn )n∈N be a sequence converging to x. Then there are z1 , z2 ∈ R such that

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

37

Y − xn ≤ Y − z1 and xn − Y ≤ z2 − Y hold for all n ∈ N. Using this and the fact
that E|Y | < ∞ we apply dominated convergence and obtain that both G1 and G2
are continuous. Moreover, for a < b we have the inequality
G1 (a) ≥ E1(b,∞) (Y )(Y − a) ≥ E1(b,∞) (Y )(Y − b) = G1 (b)
so G1 is decreasing. Similarly, we have G2 (a) ≤ G2 (b) hence G2 is increasing.
The inequalities for G1 or G2 are strict if P(Y ∈ (b, ∞)) or P(Y ∈ (−∞, a)) are
strictly positive, respectively. Moreover, we use E|Y | < ∞ to compute the limits
limx→−∞ G1 (x) = ∞ and limx→∞ G2 (x) = ∞. Similarly, dominated convergence
and a positive sequence (xn )n∈N with xn → ∞ can be used to show
0 ≤ lim G1 (x) = lim E1(xn ,∞) (Y )(Y − xn ) ≤ lim E1(xn ,∞) (Y )Y = 0.
x→∞

n→∞

n→∞

In the same way limx→−∞ G2 (x) = 0 is proved. All in all, strict monotonicity and
the intermediate value theorem give a unique x in the interior of the support of Y
such that τ G1 (x) = (1 − τ )G2 (x). This value is the unique τ -expectile of F .
In the following, if a random variable X has distribution function F , we also denote
the τ -expectile via eτ (X). The term ‘expectile’ highlights the fact that expectiles
share properties of expectations as well as quantiles. The latter becomes obvious
when considering a continuous distribution function F . In this case, the α-quantile
q satisfies the equation α(1 − F (q)) = (1 − α)F (q), which is similar to the expectile
Identity (2.11). Moreover, expectiles and quantiles share the three properties stated
in the next lemma. To prove them for quantiles, we use part (v) of Lemma 2.11 for
the first property and Lemma A.5 for the third one. The second follows from the
definition of the quantile. The properties and their proof can also be found in [38].
Lemma 2.19. Let Y =d F be a random variable with finite first moment. Then
the following hold:
(i) For s ∈ R+ , t ∈ R and Ỹ := sY + t we have eτ (Ỹ ) = seτ (Y ) + t.
(ii) For τ1 ≤ τ2 we have eτ1 (Y ) ≤ eτ2 (Y ).
(iii) eτ (−Y ) = −e1−τ (Y ).
Proof. To see (i), observe that Ỹ < eτ (Ỹ ) ⇔ Y < eτ (Y ) since s is positive and
Ỹ − eτ (Ỹ ) = s(Y − eτ (Ỹ )). For (ii) consider the expectile Identity (2.11) and
observe that the left-hand side is increasing in τ while the right-hand side is decreasing. The opposite monotonicity properties hold in x, as shown in the proof of
Lemma 2.18, and thus eτ1 (Y ) ≤ eτ2 (Y ) holds for τ1 ≤ τ2 . In order to show (iii),
take Identity (2.11) for −Y and plug in x = e1−τ (Y ). This gives
τ E(−Y + e1−τ (Y ))+ = τ E(e1−τ (Y ) − Y )+
= (1 − τ )E(Y − e1−τ (Y ))+ = (1 − τ )E(−e1−τ (Y ) − (−Y ))+
and because expectiles are unique, the relation eτ (−Y ) = −e1−τ (Y ) follows.

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

38

To look at the previous discussion in a different light, recall that the median is the
1
2 -quantile and is thus the quantile which represents some notion of a ‘center’ of the
distribution. Similarly, the mean is the 21 -expectile and describes a different notion
of center. We thus say that the expectiles generalize the mean in the same way as
the quantiles generalize the median. As a consequence, we use similar techniques to
elicit expectiles as we use for quantiles and expectations in Theorem 2.14 and Example 1.8. As before, the derivation of an identification function is straightforward,
see also Gneiting [23, Table 9].
Lemma 2.20. Fix τ ∈ (0, 1) and let F be a class of distribution functions having finite first moments. Then an oriented strict F-identification function for the
functional T : F → R, F 7→ eτ (F ) is given by V (x, y) := |1{y≤x} − τ |(x − y).
Proof. For τ ∈ (0, 1) and F ∈ F given, fix a random variable Y =d F . Rearranging
Equation (2.11) gives
τ E1{Y >x} (Y − x) = (1 − τ )E1{Y <x} (x − Y )
⇔

(2.12)

E|1{Y ≤x} − τ |(x − Y ) = 0,

showing that V is a strict F-identification function. To prove its orientation, recall
from the proof of Lemma 2.18 that the left-hand side of (2.11) is decreasing while the
right-hand side is increasing in x. Hence, x > eτ (F ) implies that “<” replaces “=”
in Equation (2.12), which shows V̄ (x, F ) > 0. For x < eτ (F ) the same arguments
give V̄ (x, F ) < 0, showing that V is oriented.
Inspired by the previous results, the first approach for a strictly F-consistent scoring
function is
S(x, y) := |1{y≤x} − τ |(y − x)2
and S is indeed strictly consistent. However, it requires all distributions in F to
have finite second moments. This requirement can be relaxed in the same way as in
Example 1.8, as shown in the following theorem. The result and its proof are part
of [23, Thm. 10].
Theorem 2.21. Fix τ ∈ (0, 1) and let F be a class of distribution functions having
finite first moments. Then the functional T : F → R, F 7→ eτ (F ) is elicitable and
an F-consistent scoring function is given by
S(x, y) = |1{y≤x} − τ |(f (y) − f (x) − f 0 (x)(y − x)),
where f is a convex and F-integrable function. If f is strictly convex, S is strictly
consistent.
Remark 2.22. Under additional assumptions it is also possible to show that all
strictly consistent scoring functions for the τ -expectile can be represented as in
Theorem 2.21, see also Remark 1.10. For details we refer to [23, Thm. 10].

2.2. QUANTILE AND EXPECTILE REGRESSION

39

Proof. For τ ∈ (0, 1) and F ∈ F given, let Y be a random variable on (Ω, A , P) with
Y =d F under P. Moreover, set t := eτ (F ), take x ∈ R and choose an F-integrable
convex function f . The latter can always be done since the first moment exists for
all F ∈ F. Now consider the case x < t and define the sets A := {Y ∈ (−∞, x]},
B := {Y ∈ (x, t]} and C := {Y ∈ (t, ∞)}. The difference S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) can then
be split up into three parts by using A ] B ] C = Ω. Note that Equation (2.11)
immediately implies
τ E1C (Y − t) = (1 − τ )E1A∪B (t − Y ).

(2.13)

Additionally, define the function
g(y, x) := f (y) − f (x) − f 0 (x)(y − x),
which is nonnegative due to the convexity of f . Moreover, we obtain the equality
g(y, x) − g(y, t) = g(t, x) + (f 0 (t) − f 0 (x))(y − t)

(2.14)

for any x, y, t ∈ R. Using these preparations, we now calculate
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = E|1{Y ≤x} − τ |g(Y, x) − E|1{Y ≤t} − τ |g(Y, t)
= (1 − τ )E(g(Y, x) − g(Y, t))1A + τ E(g(Y, x) − g(Y, t))1C
+ E(τ g(Y, x) − (1 − τ )g(Y, t))1B


= (1 − τ ) g(t, x)P(A) + (f 0 (t) − f 0 (x))E(Y − t)1A


+ τ g(t, x)P(C) + (f 0 (t) − f 0 (x))E(Y − t)1C

+ E[τ g(Y, x) − (1 − τ )(f (Y ) − f (t) − f 0 (x)(Y − t))]1B
+ (1 − τ )(f 0 (t) − f 0 (x))E(Y − t)1B ,

where (2.14) is used in the last step. Due to Identity (2.13), all expectations which
are multiplied by (f 0 (t) − f 0 (x)) vanish. Moreover, x < Y ≤ t holds on B and thus
f 0 (x)(Y − t) ≥ f 0 (Y )(Y − t) follows from the convexity of f . All in all, this implies
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = (1 − τ )g(t, x)P(A) + τ g(t, x)P(C)
+ E[τ g(Y, x) + (1 − τ )(f (t) − f (Y ) + f 0 (x)(Y − t))]1B
≥ g(t, x)[(1 − τ )P(A) + τ P(C)]
+ E(τ g(Y, x) + (1 − τ )g(t, Y ))1B ≥ 0,
which shows F-consistency in the case t < x. If we have t > x instead, we proceed
as follows. Firstly, switch the roles of t and x in the definitions of A, B and C
and do the same calculations as above. Since then t < Y ≤ x on B and because
f 0 (x)(Y − t) ≥ f 0 (Y )(Y − t) still holds, the case t > x is also done. Whenever f is
chosen strictly convex, f 0 is strictly increasing implying g(y, x) > 0 for y 6= x and
f 0 (x)(Y − t) > f 0 (Y )(Y − t) on B. Consequently, at least one of the inequalities in
our calculations needs to be strict because not all three sets A, B and C can have
probability zero. Hence, strict convexity of f implies strict consistency of S.

2.3. M-ESTIMATION

40

Similar to least squares or quantile regression, we can now use any F-consistent
scoring functions S which has the form given in Theorem 2.21 to perform expectile regression. This is done by Newey and Powell [38] who follow Koenker and
Bassett [33] and chose the strictly convex function f (x) = x2 . As discussed in the
previous subsection, they model the τ -expectile of Y | X = x as a linear function
x> β and solve the minimization problem
X
X
2
2
(yi − x>
(yi − x>
min (1 − τ )
i β)
i β) + τ
β

{yi >x>
i β}

{yi ≤x>
i β}

for given data y ∈ Rk and x ∈ Rk×p . Although [38] use expectile regression to
examine the errors of an ordinary least squares regression, it can also be used to
get an impression of the data. Similar to quantile regression, expectile regressions
can be performed and plotted for several values of τ to see how the center and the
tails behave. Moreover, expectiles have also an equivariance property, but only for
affine transformations, as shown in part (i) of Lemma 2.19.
It is sometimes remarked that τ -expectiles for τ 6= 21 are not easy to interpret. One
interpretation presented by Ehm et al. [12] is the following: In a situation with a
tax rate for gains and a deduction rate for losses, one should invest an amount θ
in a start up company having payoff distribution F only if a certain expectile of F
exceeds θ. Another interpretation can be found in a risk measurement context, see
Subsection 3.2.3.

2.3

M-estimation

One of the most important parametric methods in estimation is maximum likelihood where the estimate is chosen such that it maximizes the likelihood function.
If the likelihood function is differentiable, the parameter for which the derivative
of the likelihood function vanishes is selected. One natural extension is to use
functions which differ from the likelihood function, but lead to estimators having
better statistical properties. This approach is called M-estimation and this section
presents some results and examples which can be found in Huber and Ronchetti [29]
as well as van der Vaart [44]. In the following, let Y1 , . . . , Yn be random variables
on (Ω, A , P) taking values in O ⊂ Rd and let Θ ⊂ Rk be the parameter space.
Definition 2.23. Given n ∈ N, observations Y1 , . . . Yn and a function m : Θ × O →
R an estimator θ̂(Y1 , . . . , Yn ) which maximizes the function
n

Mn : Θ → R,

θ 7→ Mn (θ) :=

1X
m(θ, Yi )
n
i=1

is called an M-estimator.
Similar to maximum likelihood estimation, it is sometimes possible to define an
M-estimator to be a root of a certain equation. Loosely speaking, this corresponds

2.3. M-ESTIMATION

41

to setting the derivative of m with respect to θ equal to zero. Following [44], we use
a different term for such estimator.
Definition 2.24. Given n ∈ N, observations Y1 , . . . Yn and a function ψ : Θ × O →
Rk an estimator θ̂(Y1 , . . . , Yn ) which is a root of the function
n

k

Zn : Θ → R ,

1X
θ→
7 Zn (θ) :=
ψ(θ, Yi )
n
i=1

is called a Z-estimator.
Remark 2.25. The connection of these
P two definitions to elicitability and identifiability becomes clear if the symbols n1
are replaced by E (which holds approximately
for large n if the law of large numbers is satisfied). Then, in the framework of
Chapter 1, m can be interpreted as a scoring function (up to the sign) and ψ can be
interpreted as an identification function. Similarly, the estimate θ̂n then represents
the value of a functional T . Below we see that such a correspondence is indeed
justified under certain conditions. Moreover, we argue that in order to estimate the
value T (F ) for a functional T , it is sensible to use M-estimators for elicitable and
Z-estimators for identifiable functionals.
The following three examples illustrate the concepts of M- and Z-estimation. The
first example shows how maximum likelihood fits in the framework of M-estimation,
see also van der Vaart [44, Example 5.3].
Example 2.26. Let Y1 , . . . , Yn be i.i.d. random variables having density y 7→
f (θ, y), where θ ∈ Θ parametrizes the distribution.
The maximum likelihood
Q
method maximizes P
the likelihood function θ 7→ ni=1 f (θ, Yi ) or equivalently the
n
log-likelihood θ 7→
i=1 log f (θ, Yi ). Consequently, the resulting estimator is an
M-estimator for the choice m(θ, y) := log f (θ, y). If f is differentiable with respect
to θ, it is possible to set ψ(θ, y) := ∇θ log f (θ, y) and obtain a Z-estimator.

The following two examples are concerned with estimation of a location parameter
and similar arguments can be found in [44, Example 5.4].
Example 2.27. In light of Remark 2.25 and Example 1.8, one idea to estimate the
mean of a distribution is to choose m(θ, y) = −(y − θ)2 or ψ(θ, y) = y − θ since the
first is a scoring (up to the sign) and the latter an identification function
Pfor the
mean. Plugging these functions in and computing the solution gives θ̂n = n1 ni=1 Yn ,
which shows that this choice is reasonable.
Naturally, the same can be done to estimate the median. In this case choose
m(θ, y) = −|y − θ| or ψ(θ, y) = sign(θ − y) and assume for simplicity that n ∈ N is
odd. As above, computing the solution leads to θ̂n = Y(n+1)/2:n , where Yk:n denotes
the k-th order statistic of Y1 , . . . , Yn . This is indeed the empirical median.

Example 2.28. For estimates of location parameters it makes sense to define
ψ(θ, y) := ϕ(y − θ) because this guarantees the property of equivariance for the

2.3. M-ESTIMATION

42

Z-estimator related to ψ. If the data are shifted by a vector r ∈ Rd , then a shift of
the estimator by r will solve the new equation, i.e. we have θ̂(Y1 + r, . . . , Yn + r) =
θ̂(Y1 , . . . , Yn ) + r for r ∈ R. One famous example for Z-estimators constructed in
this manner are Huber’s K-estimators, which for K > 0 are defined via ψ(θ, y) :=
ϕK (y − θ) with ϕK given by

 −K, if x ≤ −K
x,
if |x| ≤ K
ϕK (x) :=

K,
if x ≥ K.
These estimators can be used to scale between the mean and the median. Recalling
Definition 2.24 and the role of ψ shows that for K → ∞ the mean is obtained while
for K → 0 the median emerges. Moreover, it is also possible to choose
m(θ, y) := |θ − y|2 1{|θ−y|≤K} + (2K|θ − y| − K 2 )1{|θ−y|>K}
in order to characterize these estimators in the framework of Definition 2.23, see
also [44, Example 5.4].

For simplicity, we consider only one-dimensional M- or Z-estimators in the following,
i.e. we fix k = 1 and Θ ⊂ R. Recall that an estimator θ̂n is called consistent for
θ0 if θ̂n → θ0 in probability as n → ∞. The next step is to show that a sequence
of M-estimators (θ̂n )n∈N is consistent for θ0 , where θ0 is the maximizer of some
asymptotic function M : Θ → R. The following theorem shows that this is indeed
possible. Moreover, it is not needed that θ̂n maximizes Mn but only that it nearly
maximizes Mn . This means that for all n ∈ N we have
Mn (θ̂n ) ≥ sup Mn (θ) − δn ,

(2.15)

θ∈Θ

where (δn )n∈N > 0 is a sequence of random variables such that δn → 0 in probability.
Theorem 2.29 (van der Vaart [44, Thm. 5.7]). Let Mn : Θ → R be random
functions, M : Θ → R a deterministic function and (θ̂n )n∈N a sequence of estimators
which satisfies Mn (θ̂n ) ≥ Mn (θ0 ) − δn , where (δn )n∈N > 0 is a sequence of random
variables satisfying δn → 0 in probability. If for every ε > 0 we have
(i) supθ∈Θ |Mn (θ) − M (θ)| → 0 in probability and
(ii) sup|θ−θ0 |>ε M (θ) < M (θ0 )
then θ̂n → θ0 in probability.
Proof. We follow [44] and use the assumption on (θ̂n )n∈N together with (i) to show
that M (θ̂n ) converges to M (θ0 ) in probability. In detail we have
|M (θ0 ) − M (θ̂n )| ≤ |M (θ0 ) − Mn (θ0 )| + |Mn (θ0 ) − Mn (θ̂n )| + |Mn (θ̂n ) − M (θ̂n )|
≤ 2 sup|Mn (θ) − M (θ)| + δn
θ∈Θ

2.3. M-ESTIMATION

43

and both terms converge to zero in probability by assumption. Due to condition
(ii), we have for any ε > 0 that |θ̂n − θ0 | > ε implies M (θ̂n ) < M (θ0 ). Consequently,
there is an η(ε) > 0 such that M (θ̂n ) < M (θ0 ) − η(ε). This gives
P(|θ̂n − θ0 | > ε) ≤ P(M (θ0 ) − M (θ̂n ) > η(ε)) → 0
for n → ∞, by using the convergence of the first part of the proof.
Remark 2.30. In condition (i) of Theorem 2.29 it is implicitly assumed that the
mapping G 7→ supθ∈Θ |G(θ) − M (θ)| is measurable. If this is not the case, the
theorem can still be proved if the convergence in (i) holds in outer measure, i.e.
there is a sequence (An )n∈N ⊂ A such that {supθ∈Θ |Mn (θ) − M (θ)| > ε} ⊂ An
holds for all n ∈ N and P(An ) → 0 as n → ∞. For more details we refer to van der
Vaart [44, Sec. 18.2].
Theorem 2.29 is now used to analyze M-estimators. To this end, let T : F → Θ
be an elicitable functional and S a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T .
Fix F ∈ F and let Yi , i P
= 1, . . . , n be i.i.d. with Yi =d F . Moreover, define the
functions Mn (θ) := − n1 ni=1 S(θ, Yi ) and M (θ) := −S̄(θ, F ). This is indeed a
reasonable choice because the law of large numbers guarantees Mn (θ) → M (θ) in
probability for any θ ∈ Θ. If the convergence Mn → M is even uniform in θ and
M satisfies condition (ii), then a straightforward way to estimate θ0 := T (F ) (the
unique maximum of M ) consistently, is using a θ̂n which nearly maximizes Mn , i.e.
it satisfies condition (2.15).
The condition of uniform convergence in probability is closely connected to the
Glivenko-Cantelli theorem (see for instance Klenke [31, Thm. 5.23]), as pointed
out in [44]. More precisely, a class of integrable functions C is called a P-GlivenkoCantelli class if the convergence
n

1X
sup
f (Xi ) − Ef (X) → 0,
f ∈C n

n→∞

i=1

holds P-almost surely (where again the outer measure might be necessary, as mentioned in Remark 2.30). The following lemma summarizes sufficient conditions
mentioned in [44] which ensure that both requirements of Theorem 2.29 hold in the
situation where m(θ, y) = −S(θ, y) and M (θ) = −S̄(θ, F ).
Lemma 2.31. Let Θ ⊂ Rk be compact and let S be such that θ 7→ S(θ, y) is
continuous for every y ∈ O. Suppose there is an F-integrable g such that |S(θ, ·)| ≤ g
almost surely for any θ. Then the conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.29 are
satisfied.
Proof. Due to the assumptions on S, the class {S(θ, ·) | θ ∈ Θ} has the GlivenkoCantelli property (see [44, Example 19.8] for a detailed proof) and hence, condition
(i) is satisfied. Furthermore, observe that since g dominates S, we apply dominated

2.3. M-ESTIMATION

44

convergence to show that M is continuous. Now suppose condition (ii) is not satisfied. Then there is an ε0 > 0 and a (deterministic) sequence (θn )n∈N such that
|θn − θ0 | > ε0 and M (θn ) → c ≥ M (θ0 ). Since Θ is compact, we choose a subsequence (θnk )k∈N such that θnk → θ̃ for some θ̃ ∈ Θ. Due to the continuity of M ,
we conclude M (θ̃) = c ≥ M (θ0 ), but at the same time we have |θ̃ − θ0 | ≥ ε0 > 0,
contradicting the fact that θ0 is the unique maximum of M .
The assumptions imposed on S as well as condition (ii) of Theorem 2.29 are rather
strong. In order to proof consistency in a more general setting we consider Zestimators according to Definition 2.24. The following proposition and its proof can
be found in Huber and Ronchetti [29, Prop. 3.1] and van der Vaart [44, Lemma
5.10].
Proposition 2.32. For any n ∈ N let Zn : Θ → R be a decreasing random function
and Z : Θ → R a deterministic function such that Zn (θ) → Z(θ) in probability for
all θ ∈ Θ. Moreover, let θ0 be the unique point such that for any ε > 0 it holds
that Z(θ0 − ε) > 0 > Z(θ0 + ε). If (θ̂n )n∈N is a sequence satisfying Zn (θ̂n ) → 0 in
probability, then θ̂n → θ0 in probability.
Proof. Take ε > 0 and set η := η(ε) < min(Z(θ0 − ε), |Z(θ0 + ε)|). Then the
monotonicity of Zn implies for any n ∈ N the inequality
P(θ̂n < θ0 − ε) ≤ P(Zn (θ̂n ) ≥ Zn (θ0 − ε))
= P(Zn (θ̂n ) ≥ Zn (θ0 − ε), Zn (θ0 − ε) > η)
+ P(Zn (θ̂n ) ≥ Zn (θ0 − ε), Zn (θ0 − ε) ≤ η)
≤ P(Zn (θ̂n ) > η) + P(Zn (θ0 − ε) ≤ η)
and analogously
P(θ̂n > θ0 + ε) ≤ P(Zn (θ̂n ) < −η) + P(Zn (θ0 + ε) ≥ −η).
Finally, it follows that P(|θ̂n − θ0 | > ε) vanishes for n → ∞, by applying both
previous inequalities and the fact that Zn (θ̂n ) → 0 as well as Zn (θ0 ± ε) → Z(θ0 ± ε)
in probability.
Similar to the discussion above, Proposition 2.32 can now be used to analyze Zestimators. To this end, let T : F → Θ be an identifiable functional with strict Fidentification function V , fix F ∈ F and P
let Yi , i = 1, . . . , n be i.i.d. with Yi =d F .
1
It is then sensible to define Zn (θ) := n ni=1 V (θ, Yi ) as well as Z(θ) := V̄ (θ, F ).
Due to the identification property of V , θ0 := T (F ) is the unique root of Z and
for all θ ∈ Θ the convergence Zn (θ) → Z(θ) follows from the law of large numbers.
If V can be chosen such that θ 7→ V (θ, y) is decreasing for any y ∈ O, then Zn is
decreasing as well and Z(θ0 − ε) > 0 > Z(θ0 + ε) is also satisfied. Therefore, T (F )
can be consistently estimated using a Z-estimator. Compared to the assumptions
imposed on S, the consistency of θ̂n is now ensured with only the monotonicity of V .

2.3. M-ESTIMATION

45

This section considers M-estimation and Z-estimation in the one-dimensional case
only. However, it is possible to generalize consistency results like Theorem 2.29 or
Proposition 2.32 to higher dimensions using a larger collection of assumptions. For
detailed results and more references we refer to Huber and Ronchetti [29]. Apart
from that, it is also possible to prove asymptotic normality for M- or Z-estimators,
see for instance [29] as well as van der Vaart [44].

Chapter 3

Elicitability in risk management
This chapter introduces coherent and convex measures of risk and presents three
risk measures which are popular in practice or academia. Moreover, law-invariant
risk measures are interpreted as functionals on a set of distribution functions F
in order to analyze which of them are elicitable. The recent result of Fissler and
Ziegel [16] that Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall are jointly elicitable is proved.
Finally, it is explained why elicitability is a desirable property for backtesting risk
measure estimates.

3.1

Risk measures and their properties

In this section we introduce risk measures and the properties of coherence and convexity, which are considered desirable properties for measures of risk. The majority
of the presented material is based on the book chapters by Föllmer and Schied [19,
Ch. 4] and McNeil et al. [37, Ch. 8]. Informally, a risk measure is a mapping which
assigns a number ρ(X) to a random variable X. Usually, X is interpreted as a
financial position and ρ(X) as stating the riskiness of X. If ρ(X) is interpreted in
terms of money, ρ is also called a monetary measure of risk.
In the following, we fix some probability space (Ω, A , P) which supports all random
variables appearing in this section. Moreover, for p ≥ 1 we define Lp (Ω, A , P) to
be the vector space of random variables X on (Ω, A , P) such that E|X|p is finite.
Similarly, L0 (Ω, A , P) is called the space of all random variables and L∞ (Ω, A , P)
the space of all random variables which are P-almost surely bounded. To shorten
notation, we suppress (Ω, A , P) and write Lp instead of Lp (Ω, A , P), for instance.
Definition 3.1. Let X be a collection of random variables on (Ω, A ) which forms
a vector space and is closed under addition of constants. Then a mapping
ρ:X →R
is called a measure of risk or just a risk measure.

46

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

47

Remark 3.2. There exist several conventions to define risk measures and each represents a way of interpreting X and ρ(X). Firstly, X can be thought of as either
positions in a portfolio or losses resulting from these positions. In the first case,
high values of X are desirable, while in the latter low values are. Secondly, high
values of ρ can express a high as well as a low level of risk. We use the following
convention: Elements of X are interpreted as portfolio values and higher values of
ρ represent riskier positions.
Remark 3.3. Note that the definition of measures of risk does not need a probability
measure on (Ω, A ). This is only needed for special choices of X , for example
subsets of Lp , L0 , or L∞ . Moreover, if a probability measure P on (Ω, A ) is fixed,
it is possible to define ρ(X) via the distribution of X under P. This approach
leads to law-invariant risk measures an is essential in Subsection 3.1.3 as well as in
Section 3.2.
When looking at ρ(X) instead of X (or its distribution), most of the information
contained in X is usually lost. Therefore, this approach needs some justification.
There exist two main motivations for studying measures of risk:
• If ρ(X) is interpreted as a simple number of riskiness, a comparison of two
different portfolios is simple, while a comparison in terms of distributions or
random variables can be arbitrarily difficult.
• If ρ(X) is interpreted as an amount of cash, this amount can be thought of to
be necessary to protect the portfolio X against losses. In this case, ρ(X) plays
the role of a capital buffer required by some financial regulator or a margin
demanded by a counterparty in trading.
In both interpretations, we use the convention that higher values of ρ represent
riskier positions. Since a risk measure ρ is just a real-valued mapping on X , it
is reasonable to impose more structure on it. This is done by introducing the
properties of coherence and convexity. We proceed chronologically and start with
coherent measures of risk.

3.1.1

Coherent measures of risk

Coherent measures of risk arise from an axiomatic approach by Artzner et al. [5] to
find an appropriate ρ. The approach uses a finite sample space Ω, but is extended
to general Ω by Delbaen [8]. Due to their simplicity and intuitive interpretation,
the axioms of the following definition are the most prominent characteristics of risk
measures.
Definition 3.4. Let ρ : X → R be a measure of risk. If for all X, Y ∈ X the risk
measure ρ satisfies the following four properties, it is called coherent.
1) Monotonicity: If X ≤ Y , then ρ(Y ) ≤ ρ(X).
2) Positive homogeneity: If λ ≥ 0, then ρ(λX) = λρ(X).

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

48

3) Translation invariance: If c ∈ R, then ρ(X + c) = ρ(X) − c.
4) Subadditivity: ρ(X + Y ) ≤ ρ(X) + ρ(Y ).
Remark 3.5. In [5], the definition of coherent measures of risk is stated for X = L∞ ,
where L∞ is the space of all equivalence classes with respect to P-almost sure
equality of L∞ . In [8], it is shown that it is impossible to extend this definition to
the space L0 . More precisely, if (Ω, A , P) is an atomless probability space, there
is no coherent risk measure on L0 (Ω, A , P). This problem can be solved if the
definition of risk measures is extended such that ρ takes values in R ∪ {∞}. We do
not use such an extension and only consider measures of risk which are real-valued.
As noted above and suggested by the name, the properties in Definition 3.4 are
selected because they allow for a coherent interpretation. In particular, the following
arguments can be used to justify them (see also [5]):
1) This axiom is natural, since it states that positions with higher values regardless of what happens are less risky.
2) Positive homogeneity means that if a position is increased or decreased by a
certain factor, then the risk of the position is scaled by the same factor.
3) A constant is usually interpreted to be a cash position. Therefore, if cash
is added to a position, the risk of this position is reduced by the amount of
added cash.
4) The subadditivity property has received the most attention. Since the sum of
two positions can never be riskier than the risk of the two positions combined,
it is supposed to represent the effects of diversification. The importance of
subadditivity can also be seen in the way of [5]: If the inverse inequality would
hold, companies would be incentivized to split up in order to reduce risk.
Acceptance sets, which are also introduced in [5], are closely related to measures of
risk. Loosely speaking, the acceptance set of a risk measure contains all positions
having an acceptable level of risk. This level of risk can be set by a risk manager
or a financial regulator, for example.
Definition 3.6. Let ρ be a monotonic and translation invariant measure of risk.
Then the set
Aρ := {X ∈ X | ρ(X) ≤ 0}
is called acceptance set of ρ.
When thinking in terms of a monetary measure of risk ρ, the set Aρ contains
all positions for which no additional cash amount has to be added to make them
acceptable. Conversely, if a set of positions A is given, it also defines a risk measure
ρ, as follows: For X ∈ X the value ρ(X) is the minimal amount of cash such that
X + ρ(X) ∈ A is satisfied. For details we refer to [19].

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

3.1.2

49

Convex measures of risk

The next step in the theory of risk measures is to relax the conditions 2) and 4) of
Definition 3.4. This is done by Föllmer and Schied [18] and the reasoning behind
this is that positive homogeneity is problematic in some situations. For example, if
the size of a position increases dramatically, there might not be enough supply or
demand to liquidate the positions if necessary. Hence, it is reasonable to suggest
that a decline in market liquidity leads to a case where ρ(λX) > λρ(X) for large λ.
The following definition generalizes coherent measures of risk.
Definition 3.7. Let ρ : X → R be a measure of risk. If for all X, Y ∈ X the risk
measure ρ satisfies the following three properties, it is called convex.
1) Monotonicity: If X ≤ Y , then ρ(Y ) ≤ ρ(X).
2) Translation invariance: If c ∈ R, then ρ(X + c) = ρ(X) − c.
3) Convexity: If λ ∈ [0, 1], then ρ(λX + (1 − λ)Y ) ≤ λρ(X) + (1 − λ)ρ(Y ).
Note that every coherent measure of risk is also a convex measure of risk, since
subadditivity together with positive homogeneity implies convexity. We now check
how a convex risk measure ρ behaves for a position λX. For simplicity, assume that
ρ(0) ≤ 0 holds. Then convexity of ρ implies
ρ(λX) = ρ((1 − λ) · 0 + λX) ≤ λρ(X)
for λ ∈ (0, 1) and similarly
λρ(X) ≤ ρ(λX) + (λ − 1)ρ(0)
for λ > 1. Therefore, convex risk measures satisfy the inequalities
ρ(λX) ≤ λρ(X)

for λ ∈ [0, 1]

and

ρ(λX) ≥ λρ(X)

for λ ≥ 1

(3.1)

instead of positive homogeneity. This subsection ends with the following example,
which discusses a well-known risk measure mentioned in Föllmer and Schied [19,
Example 4.13] called the entropic measure of risk.
Example 3.8. Fix α > 0, a probability measure P, and let E exp(−αX) be finite
for any X ∈ X . Then the mapping
ρ : X → R,

X 7→ α−1 log E exp(−αX)

is a convex measure of risk. Indeed, monotonicity and translation invariance follow from the properties of log and exp. Convexity follows by applying translation
invariance, the monotonicity of the logarithm and the convexity of the mapping

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

50

x 7→ exp(−αx). In detail, this results in
αρ(λX + (1 − λ)Y ) − λρ(X) − (1 − λ)ρ(Y )

= αρ λ(X + ρ(X)) + (1 − λ)(Y + ρ(Y ))

= log E exp − αλ(X + ρ(X)) − α(1 − λ)(Y + ρ(Y ))


≤ log λE exp(−α(X + ρ(X))) + (1 − λ)E exp(−α(Y + ρ(Y )))

≤ log max E exp(−α(X + ρ(X))) , E exp(−α(Y + ρ(Y )))

= max log E exp(−α(X + ρ(X))) , log E exp(−α(Y + ρ(Y )))
= α max(ρ(X + ρ(X)), ρ(Y + ρ(Y ))) = 0,
where the last equality follows from the fact that ρ(X +ρ(X)) = 0 for any translation
invariant risk measure. This shows that ρ is a convex risk measure, however, it is
not a coherent measure of risk, because it does not satisfy positive homogeneity. In
order to show this, let X have a Bernoulli distribution with parameter p = 12 . Then
positive homogeneity of ρ would imply that λ log(1/2 e−α + 1/2) = log(1/2 e−αλ +
1/2) holds for any choice of α, λ > 0. But this is not true, if for example α = 1 and
λ = 2 are selected, then “<” holds, hence ρ cannot be positive homogeneous. This
is in accordance with the results in (3.1).


3.1.3

Spectral measures of risk

Spectral measures of risk are introduced by Acerbi [1] and Kusuoka [34]. The latter
derives spectral risk measures while characterizing all law-invariant, coherent, and
comonotone measures of risk. Acerbi constructs reasonable risk measures by using
convex combinations of other risk measures. This section follows the approach of
[1] and introduces the concept of comonotone risk measures afterwards. In the
following it is essential to fix a probability measure P on (Ω, A ), since we consider
measures of risk ρ for which ρ(X) only depends on the law of X. These risk measures
are called law-invariant and they satisfy ρ(X) = ρ(Y ) whenever X and Y have the
same law under P. The next lemma is stated and proved in [1, Prop. 2.2].
Lemma 3.9. Let (Z, Z, ν) be a measurable space, ν a probability measure and
(ρz )z∈Z a family of risk measures such that z 7→ ρz (X) is integrable w.r.t. ν for any
X ∈ X . Define the measure of risk ρ : X → R via
Z
ρ(X) :=
ρz (X) dν(z),
Z

then the following hold:
(i) If ρz is coherent for all z ∈ Z, then ρ is coherent.
(ii) If ρz is convex for all z ∈ Z, then ρ is convex.
Proof. Monotonicity, positive homogeneity, subadditivity and convexity all carry
over from ρz to ρ due to the properties of the integral. Translation invariance
follows from the fact that ν(Z) = 1.

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

51

There exist two equivalent definitions of spectral measures of risk and their construction is motivated by Lemma 3.9. We start with the one used in McNeil et
al. [37, Sec. 8.2] and continue with a lemma showing an equivalent representation.
For a random variable X with distribution function F , we denote its lower quantile
function by FX← , see also Definition 2.10.
Definition 3.10. RLet φ : [0, 1] → R+ be a positive, integrable, and decreasing
function such that φ(s) ds = 1 holds. Then the mapping
Z
ρφ : X → R,

X 7→ ρφ (X) := −

1

FX← (s)φ(s) ds

0

is called the spectral measure of risk associated to the risk aversion function φ.
Although spectral risk measures are formed as a convex combination, it is not
possible to apply Lemma 3.9 to show coherence or convexity since the mappings
X 7→ −FX← (s), s ∈ (0, 1) are not convex risk measures (see Example 3.22). They are
called Value at Risk and their properties are discussed in Subsection 3.2.1. However,
the following lemma shows that spectral measures of risk can be represented as
convex combinations of the coherent measure of risk Expected Shortfall, which is
considered in Subsection 3.2.2. The result and its proof can be found in [1] as well
as in [37, Prop. 8.18].
Lemma 3.11. Let ρφ : X → R be a spectral measure of risk with risk aversion
function φ. Moreover, for any probability measure ν on ([0, 1], B([0, 1])) define a
risk measure ρν : X → R via
Z
ρν (X) :=
ESα (X) dν(α),
[0,1]

where
ESα (X) := −

1
α

Z

α

FX← (u) du.

0

Then for any φ there is a ν such that we have ρφ = ρν and the converse implication
is also correct.
Proof. At first, let ρφ be given. Since φ is decreasing, there exists a right-continuous
version, which is denoted by φr and coincides with φ for a.e. u ∈ [0, 1]. Now define
the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure w.r.t. φr on intervals via µ((u, 1]) = φr (u) − φr (1)
and define another measure µ̃ := µ + φr (1)δ1 , which leads to the identity φr (u) =
µ̃((u, 1]) for any u ∈ [0, 1). Using the Fubini-Tonelli theorem, we calculate
Z 1
Z 1
Z
←
←
ρφ (X) = −
FX (u)φr (u) du = −
FX (u)
dµ̃(α)du
0

Z

0


α −

=
[0,1]

1
α

Z
0

1

(u,1]


Z
←
1(u,1] (α)FX (u) du dµ̃(α) =

[0,1]

ESα (X) dν(α),

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

52

where the measure ν is defined via dν(α) = α dµ̃(α). Using integration by parts for
Lebesgue-Stieljes integrals (see for instance Hewitt [28]) gives
Z

Z

1

−φr (u) du + φr (1) = 1,

α dµ(α) + φr (1) = −φr (1) −

ν([0, 1]) =

0

[0,1]

showing that ν is a probability measure on ([0, 1], B([0, 1])).R For the converse implication, let ρν be given and define the function φ(u) := [u,1] α1 dν(α), which is
positive and decreasing on (0, 1]. As above we interchange the order of integration
to obtain ρν (X) = ρφ (X). Moreover, we have
Z
[0,1]

1
α

Z
0

1

1[0,α] (u) du dν(α) =

Z
dν(α) = 1
[0,1]

and using the Fubini-Tonelli theorem again this implies

R

φ(u) du = 1.

In the following, the measure ν is called the spectrum of ρν . As mentioned above,
Kusuoka [34] characterizes spectral measures of risk as law-invariant, coherent, and
comonotone measures of risk. Therefore, the rest of this subsection introduces
comonotone risk measures and shows that spectral risk measures are comonotone.
Both of the following definitions are part of [34, Def. 6].
Definition 3.12. Two random variables X and Y on (Ω, A , P) are called comonotonic if the inequality
(X(ω) − X(ω 0 ))(Y (ω) − Y (ω 0 )) ≥ 0
holds dP(ω) ⊗ dP(ω 0 )-almost surely.
Definition 3.13. Let ρ : X → R be a measure of risk. If for all comonotonic
X, Y ∈ X it holds that
ρ(X + Y ) = ρ(X) + ρ(Y ),
then ρ is called a comonotone measure of risk.
Remark 3.14. The concept of a comonotone measure of risk is closely connected to
subadditivity, which formalizes the effect of diversification. Although it is reasonable
to assume that diversification does not increase risk, it seems doubtful to assume
that it decreases risk in all cases. For instance, if two positions X and Y move up and
down collectively, it is not plausible that adding them to one position X +Y reduces
risk. The concept of two positions moving together is formalized by comonotonic
random variables, and a comonotone measure of risk will not show a decrease in
risk if such random variables are added.
The next step is to show that all spectral measures of risk are comonotone. We
begin with a lemma which gives equivalent conditions for comonotonicity. It collects
results from [34] and [37].

3.1. RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PROPERTIES

53

Lemma 3.15. Let X and Y be random variables. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) X and Y are comonotonic.
(ii) FX,Y (a, b) = min(FX (a), FY (b)), where FX,Y is the joint distribution function
of X and Y .
(iii) (X, Y ) =d (FX← (U ), FY← (U )) for a random variable U =d U([0, 1]).
Proof. We start with “(i)⇒(ii)” and use the same idea as [34, Prop. 17]. Fix
arbitrary a, b ∈ R and define the sets A := {X ≤ a} ∩ {Y > b} as well as B := {Y ≤
b} ∩ {X > a}. For any (ω, ω 0 ) ∈ A × B we have (X(ω) − X(ω 0 ))(Y (ω) − Y (ω 0 )) < 0
and hence the comonotonicity of X and Y implies 0 = (P ⊗ P)(A × B) = P(A)P(B).
So A or B is a null set. If A is a null set, this gives P(X ≤ a) = P(X ≤ a, Y ≤
b) ≤ P(Y ≤ b) and repeating the same argument for the case where B is a null set
shows (ii). To prove “(ii)⇒(iii)” we proceed as in [37, Prop. 7.18]. For a, b ∈ R and
U =d U([0, 1]) we obtain
F (a, b) = min(FX (a), FY (b)) = P(U ≤ min(FX (a), FY (b)))
= P(U ≤ FX (a), U ≤ FY (b)) = P(FX← (U ) ≤ a, FY← (U ) ≤ b),
where Lemma 2.11 (i) is used in the last step. Finally, we show “(iii)⇒(i)”. Observe
that it is enough to prove that (X − X̃)(Y − Ỹ ) ≥ 0 holds (P ⊗ P)-a.s. where (X̃, Ỹ )
and (X, Y ) are i.i.d. random vectors. Hence, take independent U1 , U2 =d U([0, 1]),
which implies that the events

 ←
(X − X̃)(Y − Ỹ ) < 0
and
(FX (U1 ) − FX← (U2 ))(FY← (U1 ) − FY← (U2 )) < 0
have the same probability. Since FX← and FY← are by definition increasing, the latter
set cannot have positive probability and thus X and Y are comonotonic.
Using the previous lemma, we now show that quantiles are additive if they correspond to comonotonic random variables. The result and its proof are presented in
[37, Prop. 7.20]. It is then used to show that spectral risk measures are comonotone.
Lemma 3.16. Fix α ∈ (0, 1) and let X and Y be comonotonic random variables.
Then
←
FX+Y
(α) = FX← (α) + FY← (α).
Proof. At first, define the mapping H : (0, 1) → R, u 7→ FX← (u) + FY← (u), which is
increasing and left-continuous due to Lemma 2.11 (iv). Moreover, by property (iii) of
Lemma 3.15 we have (X, Y ) =d (FX← (U ), FY← (U )) for U =d U([0, 1]). Consequently,
part (v) of Lemma 2.11 gives
←
←
←
←
←
FX+Y
(α) = FH(U
) (α) = H(FU (α)) = H(α) = FX (α) + FY (α)

for any α ∈ (0, 1).

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

54

Theorem 3.17. Every spectral measure of risk ρφ is coherent and comonotone.
Proof. Using the previous lemma and the additivity of the integral, we obtain that
all spectral measures of risk are comonotone. Coherence follows from Lemma 3.9
and the coherence of ES, which is shown in Theorem 3.30, independently of the
results of this subsection.

3.2

Examples of law-invariant risk measures

This section presents and discusses three measures of risk which are used in industry
or studied in academia. All measures considered are law-invariant, hence they are
interpreted as mappings on some class of distribution functions F and the notation
ρ(F ) instead of ρ(X) is used if X has distribution function F . Moreover, this
interpretation makes it possible to check whether the risk measures are elicitable.
We start with Value at Risk, the most widely used risk measure in practice, and
continue with Expected Shortfall which is proposed as an alternative to VaR. An
introduction to Expectile Value at Risk, which recently received much attention in
academia, concludes the section.

3.2.1

Value at Risk

For some α ∈ (0, 1), the Value at Risk (VaR) at level α is a threshold such that the
probability of the portfolio loss exceeding this threshold is equal or below α. Consequently, the suitable mathematical object to represent the risk of a distribution
function F is one of its α-quantiles, see Definition 2.10. However, since quantiles
are not always unique and risk measure conventions differ, as noted in Remark 3.2,
there are different definitions of VaR and one of them is the following.
Definition 3.18. Fix α ∈ (0, 1) and let X have distribution F . Then
VaRα (F ) := VaRα (X) := −F ← (α)
is called the Value at Risk at level α of X (or F ).
Remark 3.19. Typically, α will be some small value, like 1% or 5% so that VaR
considers the left tail of the distribution function F . As mentioned above, other
conventions are popular as well. Fissler and Ziegel [16] define VaR via F ← (α) because they use opposite signs (higher values of ρ represent less risk). Artzner et al. [5]
← (1−α), which
use the same sign convention but define VaRα (X) via −FX→ (α) = F−X
coincides with Definition 3.18 for continuous distributions F (see Lemma A.5).
Value at Risk is widely used in practice for risk management, financial reporting,
and computation of capital requirements. In particular, the Basel framework for
the regulation of the banking industry as well as the Solvency II Directive for EU
insurance regulation use VaR to compute certain capital requirements. For details
we refer to McNeil et al. [37, Sec. 2.3] and the references therein. We continue

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

55

by studying the properties of Value at Risk. At first, we consider VaR for normal
distributions.
Example 3.20 (VaR for normal distributions). Let X be a random variable with
distribution N (µ, σ 2 ) and fix α ∈ (0, 1). We denote the quantile function of N (0, 1)
by Φ−1 and hence
VaRα (X) = −µ − σΦ−1 (α),
(3.2)
since the quantile function of X is given by p 7→ µ + σΦ−1 (p).



The following result shows that VaR satisfies the properties 1) to 3) of Definition 3.4
and is also a comotone measure of risk. Due to the definition of VaR, it is an
immediate consequence of previous findings concerning quantiles.
Lemma 3.21. Fix α ∈ (0, 1). Then the risk measure VaRα satisfies monotonicity,
translation invariance and positive homogeneity. Moreover, it is comonotone.
Proof. Let X, Y be random variables. Assume X ≤ Y , then this implies FX ≥
FY and hence FX← ≤ FY← , which gives VaRα (X) ≥ VaRα (Y ). For the other two
properties, note that the mappings x 7→ cx (with c > 0) as well as x 7→ x − c are
increasing and left-continuous. Consequently, they follow from Lemma 2.11 (v). If
X and Y are comonotonic, Lemma 3.16 implies that VaRα is comonotone.
In light of the previous lemma, only subadditivity or convexity are missing to make
VaR a coherent measure of risk. However, VaR is not subadditive in general and
thus fails to be a coherent risk measure. The following simple example shows that
VaR is not convex and hence cannot be coherent. Similar examples can be found
in [5], for instance. Note that it is possible to construct similar examples for continuous distributions, for example by using independent losses with heavy-tailed
distributions. We refer to [37, Example 2.25].
Example 3.22. Define the distribution P := 0.04 δ−1 + 0.96 δr on (R, B(R)) for
some r > 0. Let X1 and X2 be independent random variables having distribution
P , which implies that X1 + X2 has distribution 0.0016 δ−2 + 0.0768 δr−1 + 0.9216 δ2r .
Setting α = 0.05 and using positive homogeneity gives
1
1
VaRα (X1 + X2 ) = 1 − r > −r = VaRα (X1 ) = VaRα (2X1 ) + VaRα (2X2 ),
2
2
which shows that VaR violates convexity.



Although in general VaR is not a convex measure of risk, there are special distributions such that this holds, for example the (multivariate) normal distribution. This
well-known result is stated in the following lemma and is an immediate consequence
of Example 3.20.
Lemma 3.23. Fix α ∈ (0, 12 ] and let X be a space of random variables such that
any pair X, Y ∈ X is jointly normally distributed. Then VaRα defined on X is a
coherent measure of risk.

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

56

Proof. Due to Lemma 3.21, only subadditivity needs to be shown. To this end, fix
some X, Y ∈ X which are jointly normal by assumption. It is well-known that then
X + Y is either normally distributed or constant almost surely. For the first case
the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives
Var(X + Y ) ≤ Var(X) + Var(Y ) + 2| Cov(X, Y )|
p
p
≤ Var(X) + Var(Y ) + 2 Var(X) Var(Y ),
implying σX+Y ≤ σX + σY for the standard deviations. Using Equation (3.2) it
follows that
VaRα (X + Y ) = −µX − µY − Φ−1 (α)σX+Y
≤ −µX − µY − Φ−1 (α)(σX + σY ) = VaRα (X) + VaRα (Y ),
since Φ−1 (α) ≤ 0 for α ≤ 21 . Finally, in the case where X + Y = c a.s. for some
c ∈ R, we have µX = −µY + c and σX+Y = 0, which gives
VaRα (X + Y ) = c ≤ c − Φ−1 (α)(σX + σY ) = VaRα (X) + VaRα (Y ),
using Φ−1 (α) ≤ 0 again.
This result can be extended to hold for random variables which are jointly elliptically
distributed. A detailed treatment can again be found in [37, Thm. 8.28]. The next
result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.14 and Remark 1.22.
Theorem 3.24. For α ∈ (0, 1), consider the VaR functional on a set of distribution
functions F, i.e. VaRα : F → R. If all elements in F have unique α-quantiles, it
follows that VaRα is elicitable.
To complete this subsection, we consider the acceptance set of VaR. For simplicity, assume that all random variables in X have continuous, strictly increasing
distribution functions and fix α ∈ (0, 1). For X =d F we have by definition
VaRα (X) ≤ 0 ⇔ F ← (α) ≥ 0 and this is equivalent to α(1 − F (0)) ≥ (1 − α)F (0)
due to monotonicity of F . Recalling Definition 3.6, it follows that


P(X > 0)
1−α
AVaRα := X ∈ X
≥
P(X ≤ 0)
α
is the acceptance set of VaR. Economically speaking, a position is acceptable in
terms of Value at Risk if the probability of gain exceeds the probability of loss by
a certain factor.
This subsection shows that Value at Risk has some desirable risk measure properties
and is moreover elicitable. However, it also has some disadvantages as discussed in
[5] among others. It is not a coherent and not even a convex measure of risk due
to its lack of convexity. This lack can cause serious problems in practice, since it

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

57

is impossible to guarantee that the risk measured by VaR decreases if a position
is diversified. Another serious disadvantage is illustrated by its acceptance set. It
shows that Value at Risk only controls the probability of occurring losses (versus the
probability of occurring gains). All losses which are worse than VaR are irrelevant
and thus remain undetected, which may have disastrous consequences. Both of
these well-known drawbacks of Value at Risk led to the introduction of Expected
Shortfall, which is discussed in the following subsection.

3.2.2

Expected Shortfall

Although the concept of Expected Shortfall (ES) has been given many names in the
literature, it is always based on the expectation of the tail of a random variable.
A similar measure called ‘tail conditional expectation’ is mentioned by Artzner et
al. [5] and other names include ‘Conditional Value at Risk’ or ‘Average Value at Risk’
in Rockafellar and Uryasev [41] or Föllmer and Schied [19], respectively. Further
development is due to Acerbi and Tasche [4, 3] among others. This subsection
mainly presents their results.
Definition 3.25. Fix α ∈ (0, 1) and let X have distribution function F and finite
first moment. Then
Z
1 α ←
ESα (F ) := ESα (X) := −
F (u) du
α 0
is called the Expected Shortfall at level α of X (or F ).
Remark 3.26. An immediate consequence of the definition is the representation
Z
1 α
ESα (X) =
VaRs (X) ds,
(3.3)
α 0
which is the reason why ES is sometimes called ‘Average Value at Risk’. Note that
the same identity is obtained if VaR is defined using F → instead of F ← , since both
quantile functions coincide for all but a countable number of points. Finally, for
any α ∈ (0, 1) we obtain the inequality
ESα (X) ≥ VaRα (X),

(3.4)

which follows from (3.3) and the monotonicity of VaR.
Remark 3.27. As clarified in [3], one reason why Expected Shortfall is considered
to be more reasonable than Value at Risk is given by the type of question the risk
measures answer. While VaR answers the question ‘What is the minimum loss
incurred in the α100% worst cases of the portfolio?’, ES is an answer to ‘What is
the expected loss incurred in the α100% worst cases of the portfolio?’. Like VaR,
it makes sense to consider ES for small values of α.

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

58

Definition 3.25 is similar to the one used by Fissler and Ziegel [16], however Acerbi
and Tasche [4, 3] use Representation (3.5). The next lemma shows that both definitions are in fact equivalent. The result and its proof can be found in [4] as well
as in McNeil et al. [37, Prop. 8.13].
Lemma 3.28. For α ∈ (0, 1) and an integrable random variable X we have
ESα (X) = −


1
EX 1{X≤FX← (α)} + FX← (α) α − P(X ≤ FX← (α)) .
α

(3.5)

Proof. Fix α ∈ (0, 1) and let X be some integrable random variable. Starting with
the definition of ES, let U be a random variable on (Ω, A , P) with U =d U([0, 1])
under P. This implies FX← (U ) =d X under P (see for instance [19, Lemma A.23])
and hence we obtain
Z
1
1 α ←
F (u) du = − EFX← (U )1{U ≤α} .
ESα (X) = −
α 0 X
α
Now consider the set {U ≤ α}. Part (i) of Lemma 2.11 implies that FX← (U ) ≤
FX← (α) if and only if U ≤ FX (FX← (α)), implying the decomposition
{FX← (U ) ≤ FX← (α)} = {U ≤ α} ] {α < U ≤ FX (FX← (α))}.

(3.6)

Since the sets on the right-hand side are disjoint, the identity carries over to indicator
functions of the sets. This gives
EFX← (U )1{U ≤α} = EFX← (U )1{X≤FX← (α)} − EFX← (U )1{α<U ≤FX (FX← (α))}
= EX 1{X≤FX← (α)} − FX← (α)P(α < U ≤ FX (FX← (α)))


= EX 1{X≤FX← (α)} + FX← (α) α − FX (FX← (α)) ,

since FX← (α) = FX← (U ) must hold on the set {α < U ≤ FX (FX← (α))}.
Remark 3.29. If X is a continuously distributed random variable, Lemma 2.11 (ii)
implies α = FX (FX← (α)) and hence the left-hand side of (3.6) reduces to the set
{U ≤ α}. As a consequence, Representation (3.5) simplifies to
1
ESα (X) = − EX 1{X≤FX← (α)} = E[−X | −X ≥ VaRα (X)],
α

(3.7)

which justifies the name ‘tail conditional expectation’ used by Acerbi [1] as well as
the term ‘Conditional Value at Risk’ (CVaR). Note that some authors distinguish
between ES and CVaR while others use both terms interchangeably. If a distinction
is made, the right-hand side of (3.7) is used to define CVaR. However, defining CVaR
this way does not produce a coherent measure of risk, unless all distributions are
continuous. For a counterexample see for instance Acerbi and Tasche [4, Example
5.4].

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

59

The following theorem shows that ES can be regarded as an improvement of VaR,
in the sense that it is a coherent measure of risk. The result and its proof can be
found in [4] and [37, Example 2.26]. We provide our own proof, which uses the
scoring functions for quantiles from Theorem 2.14 to show subadditivity.
Theorem 3.30. Fix α ∈ (0, 1). Then ESα is a coherent and comonotone measure
of risk.
Proof. In Lemma 3.21 it is shown that VaR satisfies monotonicity, positive homogeneity, translation invariance and comonotonicity. Due to the Identity (3.3), these
properties carry over to ES. It remains to be shown that ES is subadditive. To this
end, fix α ∈ (0, 1) and let X and Y be integrable random variables on (Ω, A , P).
Moreover, observe that for any A ∈ A and c ∈ R we have
E(c − X)1A ≤ E(c − X)1{X≤c} ,

(3.8)

and the same holds for X replaced by Y . Moreover, define the scoring function
S(x, y) := (1{y≤x} − α)(x − y), which is consistent for F ← (α) due to Theorem 2.14.
Using Representation (3.5) for ESα gives
1
←
←
ESα (X + Y ) + E(X + Y ) = − E(X + Y − FX+Y
(α))(1{X+Y ≤FX+Y
(α)} − α)
α
1
←
= S̄(FX+Y
(α), FX+Y )
α
1
≤ S̄(FX← (α) + FY← (α), FX+Y )
α
1
= E(FX← (α) − X)(1{X+Y ≤FX← (α)+FY← (α)} − α)
α
1
+ E(FY← (α) − Y )(1{X+Y ≤FX← (α)+FY← (α)} − α)
α
1
≤ E(FX← (α) − X)(1{X≤FX← (α)} − α)
α
1
+ E(FY← (α) − Y )(1{Y ≤FY← (α)} − α)
α
= ESα (X) + ESα (Y ) + E(X + Y ),
where the first inequality uses consistency of S and the second inequality is an
application of (3.8). Subtracting E(X + Y ) shows that ES is subadditive.
The next Example is part of McNeil et al. [37, Example 2.14].
Example 3.31 (ES for normal distributions). Similar to Example 3.20, we compute
the Expected Shortfall at level α ∈ (0, 1) of a random variable X =d N (µ, σ 2 ). Using
either Equation (3.5) or Remark 3.29 we obtain


1
X −µ
ESα (X) = −µ − σ E
1{(X−µ)/σ≤(FX← (α)−µ)/σ} ,
α
σ

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

60

which together with Example 3.20 shows that ESα (X) = −µ + σESα (N ) for a
random variable N =d N (0, 1). Now denote the quantile function of N via Φ−1 and
use (3.5) to calculate
Z −1
x=Φ−1 (α)
1 Φ (α)
1
ϕ(Φ−1 (α))
ESα (N ) = −
xϕ(x) dx = ϕ(x)
=
,
α −∞
α
α
x=−∞
which finally implies
ESα (X) = −µ + σ

ϕ(Φ−1 (α))
.
α


Considering the previous results, it seems that Expected Shortfall is preferable
compared to Value at Risk. However, ES also has some drawbacks. Most obviously,
the distribution of the considered position is required to have a finite first moment,
so ES is not universally applicable. Secondly, the nice properties of ES are achieved
at the cost of higher mathematical complexity compared to VaR. Finally, when
defined as a functional on a ‘rich enough’ set of distribution functions, ES fails to
be elicitable. All proofs of this fact show that the necessary condition of convex
level sets as stated in Proposition 1.16 is not satisfied. Concrete counterexamples are
provided by Gneiting [23, Thm. 11] using discrete distributions and by Weber [45,
Example 3.10] using a mixture of discrete and continuous distributions. In the next
example only continuous distributions are used to construct a situation where a
level set of ES is not convex.
Example 3.32 (Non-elicitability of Expected Shortfall). Fix α < 2/3 and define
two distribution functions F1 , F2 via their densities f1 , f2 , which are given by
α
α
f1 (x) := 1[−2,−1] (x) + 1[1,2] (x) + (1 − α)1(2,3] (x),
2
2
3α
3α 
f2 (x) :=
1[−1/2,1] (x) + 1 −
1 (x).
2
2 (1,2]
This definition immediately implies F1← (α) = 2 and F2← (α) = 21 . Now let F be
a convex class of continuous distribution functions with finite first moments which
contains F1 and F2 . We consider ESα as a functional on F and use the simplified
version of ES as stated in Remark 3.29, since all members of F are continuous. This
implies ESα (F1 ) = ESα (F2 ) = 0. If we define F := 21 (F1 + F2 ) we have F ← (α) = 1
and ESα can be computed as the mean of two scaled uniform distributions on the
intervals [−2, −1] and [−1/2, 1]. In detail we obtain
 



3α 1 − 1/2
3
3
3
1 α −2 − 1
ESα (F ) = −
+
= −
= ,
α 4
2
4
2
8 16
16
showing that ESα ( 21 (F1 + F2 )) 6= 12 (ESα (F1 ) + ESα (F2 )). Hence, ESα cannot be
elicitable relative to the class F due to Proposition 1.16. As noted in Remark 1.19,
this does not imply that ES is non-elicitable for all choices of F. For instance, ESα
is elicitable relative to some class F if all members of F have the same α-quantile,
see also Lemma 4.9.


3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

61

In addition to the previous example and the mentioned references, Ziegel [46] demonstrates that all spectral measures of risk given in Definition 3.10 fail to be elicitable.

3.2.3

Expectile Value at Risk

Since every random variable with finite first moment has a unique τ -expectile, it
is possible to consider expectiles as measures of risk. Guided by the insights on
Value at Risk and the non-elicitability of spectral risk measures, Ziegel [46] poses
the question whether expectiles are the only coherent elicitable risk measures. The
affirmative answer is given by Steinwart et al. [43] and Bellini and Bignozzi [7] and
due to this result, expectiles have received increasing attention in the literature.
This subsection gives a short introduction which is mainly based on Bellini and
Bernardino [6].
Definition 3.33. Let X be a random variable with distribution function F having
finite first moment. For τ ∈ (0, 1), let eτ (F ) be the τ -expectile as in Definition 2.17.
Then
EVaRτ (X) := EVaRτ (F ) := −eτ (F )
is called the Expectile Value at Risk at level τ of X (or F ).
Remark 3.34. Similar to Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall, it makes sense to
consider the Expectile Value at Risk for small values of τ ∈ (0, 1). The reason for
this is that a small τ increases the value of the right-hand side of the expectile
Identity (2.11) and thus gives more weight to the left tail of the distribution under
consideration.
The following theorem shows that EVaR is a sensible risk measure choice, at least
from a theoretical point of view, as stated and proved in [7] and [37, Prop. 8.25].
Theorem 3.35. Fix τ ∈ (0, 12 ]. Then EVaRτ is a coherent measure of risk.
Proof. In the following, fix τ ∈ (0, 12 ] and let X, Y be some integrable random
variables. At first, note that positive homogeneity and translation invariance follow
from the first part of Lemma 2.19. For monotonicity, assume that X ≤ Y holds,
which implies the inequality
τ E(X − eτ (Y ))+ ≤ τ E(Y − eτ (Y ))+ = (1 − τ )E(eτ (Y ) − Y )+
≤ (1 − τ )E(eτ (Y ) − X)+ .
From the proof of Lemma 2.18 it is known that the left-hand side of the expectile Identity (2.11) is decreasing in x while the right-hand side is increasing in x.
The previous calculation shows that the left term is smaller than the right term
if x = eτ (Y ) is plugged in. Consequently, we must have eτ (X) ≤ eτ (Y ) and thus
EVaRτ (X) ≥ EVaRτ (Y ). In order to prove subadditivity, note first that the identity (x−y)+ −(y−x)+ = x−y holds for any x, y ∈ R. As a consequence, τ -expectiles

3.2. EXAMPLES OF LAW-INVARIANT RISK MEASURES

62

satisfy the relation
(1 − τ )E(eτ (X) − X)+ = τ E(X − eτ (X))+
= τ E(eτ (X) − X)+ + τ (EX − eτ (X))
⇔

τ (EX − eτ (X)) = (1 − 2τ )E(eτ (X) − X)+ ,

(3.9)

and the same holds for X replaced by Y . Now take the expectile Identity (2.11)
for X + Y and plug in x = eτ (X) + eτ (Y ). The difference between the left- and
right-hand side is then given by
∆E := τ E(X + Y − eτ (X) − eτ (Y ))+ − (1 − τ )E(eτ (X) + eτ (Y ) − X − Y )+
= (2τ − 1)E(eτ (X) + eτ (Y ) − X − Y )+ + τ E(X + Y − eτ (X) − eτ (Y )).
Since x 7→ x+ is a subadditive function and τ ≤ 21 we obtain


∆E ≥ (2τ − 1) E(eτ (X) − X)+ + E(eτ (Y ) − Y )+


+τ EX − eτ (X) + EY − eτ (Y ) = 0,
where Equation (3.9) is used in the last step. For τ ≤

1
2

(3.10)

this implies

τ E(X + Y − eτ (X) − eτ (Y ))+ ≥ (1 − τ )E(eτ (X) + eτ (Y ) − X − Y )+ ,
and we follow the same arguments as were used to show monotonicity in the beginning of the proof. This gives eτ (X)+eτ (Y ) ≤ eτ (X+Y ), which implies subadditivity
of EVaRτ .
Remark 3.36 (EVaR is not comonotone). Note that EVaR is only a coherent but
not a comonotone measure of risk. This is shown by Delbaen [9, Remark 6] and
also remarked by Acerbi and Szekely [2, Sec. 3.2]. To understand why EVaR lacks
this property, we take a closer look at the proof of Theorem 3.35. More precisely,
we consider under which conditions on X and Y the estimate in (3.10) is strict. To
this end, note that the subadditivity of x 7→ x+ is used in order to show (3.10).
Moreover, observe that for a, b 6= 0 we have (a + b)+ < a+ + b+ if and only if a and
b have different sign. Consequently, for a strict inequality in (3.10) it is sufficient
to find random variables X and Y which have different sign on a set with positive
probability (by Lemma 2.19 (i) we assume w.l.o.g. that eτ (X) and eτ (Y ) are zero).
The choice N =d N (0, 1), X := N and Y := exp(N ) satisfies this condition and
X and Y are comonotonic since they are increasing functions of the same random
variable. Finally, a strict inequality in (3.10) implies eτ (X) + eτ (Y ) < eτ (X + Y ),
but since X and Y are comonotonic this shows that EVaR cannot be a comonotone
risk measure.
The next theorem states that Expectile Value at Risk is elicitable. It is an immediate
consequence of Theorem 2.21 and Remark 1.22.
Theorem 3.37. Fix τ ∈ (0, 1) and let F be a set of distribution functions with finite
first moments. If we consider EVaR as a functional on F, i.e. EVaRτ : F → R,
then it is elicitable.

3.3. JOINT ELICITABILITY OF SPECTRAL MEASURES OF RISK

63

Finally, in order to interpret the risk measure EVaR, we take a look at its acceptance set and compare this set to the acceptable positions for VaR (which is also
done in [6]). Let X be an integrable random variable and τ ∈ (0, 12 ]. Recall Definition 3.6 and the familiar fact that the left-hand side of the expectile Identity (2.11)
is decreasing in x. Therefore, we have EVaRτ (X) ≤ 0 ⇔ eτ (X) ≥ 0 and this is
equivalent to τ EX + ≥ (1 − τ )E(−X)+ . This shows that


EX +
1−τ
1
AEVaRτ = X ∈ L
≥
−EX −
τ
is the acceptance set of EVaR. Hence, an intuitive interpretation is the following: A
position is acceptable in terms of EVaR as long as the ratio of expected gains and
expected losses exceeds a certain threshold.

3.2.4

Comparison of the different risk measures

Due to the lack of coherence of Value at Risk, Expected Shortfall presents itself
as a coherent alternative, although only for integrable random variables. If the
elicitability of risk measures is also considered, VaR becomes attractive again, since
ES fails to be elicitable. However, one is not forced to make a choice between
elicitability and coherence, since the Expectile Value at Risk represents a third
alternative satisfying both properties. Moreover, as argued in [6], EVaR behaves
like VaR and ES for real-world data and its acceptance set allows for an intuitive
interpretation. All things considered, it seems reasonable to choose EVaR as a
replacement for VaR. However, this discussion takes a new turn if the result of
Fissler and Ziegel [16] is taken into account, who are able to show that ES is
jointly elicitable with VaR. Although joint elicitability is slightly more complex,
this eliminates one of the biggest advantages of EVaR. Additionally, as discussed
in Remark 3.36, EVaR fails to be a comonotone measure of risk which can lead to
serious allocation problems (see also Remark 3.14). In contrast, ES is a comonotone
risk measure. From a theoretical point of view, we thus conclude that ES is the
most convincing (law-invariant) measure of risk. Naturally, spectral measures of risk
with a discrete spectrum compare equally well. This conclusion is based on the joint
elicitability of spectral risk measures, which is proved in the next section. Figure 3.1
provides a graphical overview of the properties and risk measures discussed in this
section. For a detailed discussion of the advantages and drawbacks of the presented
risk measures, also including further aspects, we refer to Emmer et al. [13].

3.3

Joint elicitability of spectral measures of risk

This section proves joint elicitability of spectral measures of risk and quantiles,
which in particular implies that the pair (VaR, ES) is elicitable. A first approach
to prove the latter result is found in Acerbi and Szekely [2, Sec. 3.3]. The authors
assume all F ∈ F to be continuous and use Identity (3.7) to construct an identification function for (VaR, ES), from which they are then able to construct a family

3.3. JOINT ELICITABILITY OF SPECTRAL MEASURES OF RISK

64

convex
coherent
spectral

ES

EVaR

VaR
elicitable

component of elicitable vector
Figure 3.1: Relationship between elicitability and selected risk measure properties,
together with the three risk measures Expected Shortfall (ES), Value at Risk (VaR),
and Expectile Value at Risk (EVaR).
of scoring functions. However, they only show that the integrated score has a local
minimum at (VaR, ES) which is not enough to prove strict consistency. Besides,
they assume that there is a W ∈ R such that ESα (F ) < W VaRα (F ) is satisfied for
all F ∈ F.
A rigorous proof of the elicitability of (VaR, ES) without such an assumption is
done by Fissler and Ziegel [16], who in fact show an even stronger result. Loosely
speaking, they demonstrate that every spectral risk measure having a spectral measure with finite support is jointly elicitable together with all quantiles it uses. We
begin with assumptions and notation necessary to prove the result.
For the rest of this section, let F be a class of continuous distribution functions
having finite first moments. Moreover, let O ⊆ R be a set containing the support
of all corresponding random variables. The representation of spectral measures of
risk as given in Lemma 3.11 leads to the following definition.
Definition 3.38. Fix k ∈ N, k > 1 and let pi , qi ∈ P
(0, 1] for i = 1, . . . , k − 1 be such
that the qi are pairwise distinct and the pi satisfy k−1
i=1 pi = 1. Then
Tk : F → R,

F 7→ Tk (F ) := −

k−1
X

ESqi (F )pi

i=1

is called spectral risk measure functional of order k, determined by (pi , qi )i=1,...,k−1 .
If qi = 1 for some i, the convention ES1 (X) := −EX is used. Moreover, the elements
in F are continuous, hence the representation of ES given in Remark 3.29 leads to
Tk (F ) =

Z
k−1
X
pi
i=1

qi

F ← (qi )

−∞

y dF (y)

(3.11)

3.3. JOINT ELICITABILITY OF SPECTRAL MEASURES OF RISK

65

for any F ∈ F. Finally, note that the spectral risk measure functional represents a
negative spectral measure of risk. The reason lies in the different sign conventions
for risk measures used in [16] and this work, see also Remark 3.2. This is not a
problem, since it is possible to use the revelation principle to adapt the result to
the risk measure convention used here, as done in Corollary 3.43. The following
theorem is the first part of [16, Thm. 5.2].
Theorem 3.39. Let Tk be a spectral risk measure functional of order k determined
by (pi , qi )i=1,...,k−1 which satisfies qi < 1 for i = 1, . . . , k − 1. Moreover, define the
functionals Ti (F ) := F ← (qi ), i = 1, . . . , k − 1 and set
T : F → A,

F 7→ T (F ) := (T1 (F ), . . . , Tk (F ))>

for A := T1 (F) × . . . × Tk (F) ⊂ Rk . For a ∈ R and i = 1, . . . , k define the sets
A0i := {x ∈ R | ∃z ∈ A : x = zi }
A0i,a

and

:= {x ∈ R | ∃z ∈ A : x = zi , a = zk }.

Then the function S : A × O → R defined via
S(x, y) :=

k−1
X


(1{y≤xi } − qi )gi (xi ) − 1{y≤xi } gi (y)
i=1

+ gk (xk ) xk +

k−1
X
pi
i=1

qi

!

(1{y≤xi } (xi − y) − qi xi )

− Gk (xk )

is a scoring function for T , where gi : A0i → R, i = 1, . . . , k − 1 are some functions
such that 1(−∞,u] gi is F-integrable for any u ∈ A0i and the functions Gk , gk : A0k → R
satisfy G0k = gk .
If Gk is convex and for all i = 1, . . . , k − 1 and u ∈ A0i the function
Hi,u : A0i,u → R,

v 7→ v

pi
gk (u) + gi (v)
qi

is increasing, S is an F-consistent scoring function for T . If additionally, Gk is
strictly convex, Hi,u is strictly increasing for any u ∈ A0i , i = 1, . . . , k − 1 and all
qi -quantiles are unique, then S is a strictly F-consistent scoring function and T is
elicitable.
Remark 3.40. In Remark 1.10 it is mentioned that strictly consistent scoring functions for the mean have a necessary structure. A similar statement can be proved
for the previous theorem. More precisely, [16, Thm. 5.2] shows that in the situation
of Theorem 3.39 and given a certain identification function, any strictly consistent scoring function for the functional T is of the form S(x, y) + a(y) for some
F-integrable function a.

3.3. JOINT ELICITABILITY OF SPECTRAL MEASURES OF RISK

66

Proof. We do a proof similar to [16]. For S to be a scoring function only Fintegrability is needed, which follows from the integrability assumptions imposed
on gi , i ∈ Ik−1 := {1, . . . , k − 1}. It remains to be shown that S is (strictly)
F-consistent. To this end, suppose that Gk is convex and for all i ∈ Ik−1 and
u ∈ A0i the function Hi,u is increasing. Fix F ∈ F, let x = (x1 , . . . , xk ) ∈ A and set
t = (t1 , . . . , tk ) = T (F ). For some w ∈ A0k we add the equation
k−1
X

(1{y≤xi } − qi )

i=1

= gk (w)

= gk (w)

pi
gk (w)(xi − y)
qi

k−1
X
pi
i=1
k−1
X
i=1

qi

(1{y≤xi } (xi − y) − qi (xi − y))

pi
(1
(xi − y) − qi xi ) + gk (w)y
qi {y≤xi }

to the definition of S and moreover add and subtract the term gk (w)xk . The
resulting identity is
k−1 h


i
X
pi
S(x, y) =
(1{y≤xi } − qi ) gi (xi ) + gk (w)(xi − y) − 1{y≤xi } gi (y)
qi
i=1
!
k−1
X
pi
(1
(xi − y) − qi xi )
+ (gk (xk ) − gk (w)) xk +
qi {y≤xi }
i=1

− Gk (xk ) + gk (w)(xk − y).
Using this representation and setting w := min(xk , tk ) gives S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) =
P
k−1
i=1 ξi + R, where ξi and R are given by

pi
ξi = (F (xi ) − qi ) gi (xi ) + gk (w)xi −
qi


Z

xi

gi (y) +
ti

pi
gk (w)y dF (y)
qi

for i ∈ Ik−1 and
!
Z xi
k−1
X
pi
xi − y dF (y) − qi xi )
R = (gk (xk ) − gk (w)) xk +
(
qi −∞
i=1

− Gk (xk ) + Gk (tk ) + gk (w)(xk − tk ).
In order to obtain the terms ξi , i ∈ Ik−1 , we use that F (ti ) = qi , which follows from
the continuity of F . For R the identity
Z ti
Z
k−1
k−1
X
X
pi
pi ti
tk +
(
ti − y dF (y) − qi ti ) = tk −
y dF (y) = 0
qi −∞
qi −∞
i=1

i=1

(3.12)

3.3. JOINT ELICITABILITY OF SPECTRAL MEASURES OF RISK

67

is applied, which is an implication of (3.11). The proof concludes by showing that
both ξi and R are nonnegative.
Regarding ξi , pick any i ∈ Ik−1 and suppose ti < xi . The term ξi contains Hi,w in
the integral as well as in parenthesis, and this function is increasing by assumption.
Using F (ti ) = qi this implies
Z xi
ξi = (F (xi ) − qi )Hi,w (xi ) −
Hi,w (y) dF (y)
ti

≥ (F (xi ) − qi )Hi,w (xi ) − (F (xi ) − F (ti ))Hi,w (xi ) = 0,

(3.13)

and the same holds true if ti > xi is assumed. Consequently, ξi ≥ 0 for i ∈ Ik−1 and
if all qi -quantiles are unique and all Hi,w are strictly increasing, the strict inequality
ξi > 0 follows.
Turning to R, the first step is to use integration by parts in order to transform all
integrals for i ∈ Ik−1 as follows
Z

xi

Z

ti

Z

−∞
Z ti

−∞

xi

y dF (y) −

xi − y dF (y) = −
=−

y dF (y) + F (xi )xi
ti

Z

xi

F (y) dy.

y dF (y) + ti F (ti ) +
−∞

ti

Using this identity together with Equation (3.11) shows that the term in big parenthesis equals
xk − t k +

k−1
X
i=1

1
pi (ti − xi +
qi

Z

xi

F (y) dy) ≥ xk − tk ,

(3.14)

ti

where the inequality follows from the fact that
Z xi
Z xi
Z xi
F (y)
F (y)
dy = xi − ti
dy =
dy ≥
qi
ti
ti F (ti )
ti
for ti 6= xi and any i ∈ Ik−1 . Since Gk is assumed convex, gk is increasing. Consequently, gk (xk ) − gk (w) is nonnegative and hence (3.14) implies that the first
summand of R is nonnegative. This gives
R ≥ (gk (xk ) − gk (w))(xk − tk ) − Gk (xk ) + Gk (tk ) + gk (w)(xk − tk )
= Gk (tk ) − Gk (xk ) − gk (xk )(tk − xk ) ≥ 0,
since Gk is convex and G0k = gk . The last inequality is strict if Gk is strictly convex
and tk 6= xk . All in all, S is a (strictly) F-consistent scoring function.

3.3. JOINT ELICITABILITY OF SPECTRAL MEASURES OF RISK

68

Remark 3.41. It would be desirable to modify the proof such that S remains
(strictly) consistent for discontinuous distribution functions in F. One idea to do so
is to apply the same techniques as in Example 2.16 and the proof of Theorem 2.14
in order to bound ξi in (3.13). However, there would still be a problem concerning
R, since (3.12) is not always valid for discontinuous distributions. Nevertheless,
different techniques can be used to show that that S remains (strictly) consistent
for discontinuous distribution functions, see Corollary 4.18.
The rest of this section presents two corollaries from [16] which consider two special cases of functionals. The first is concerned with the restriction qi < 1 in
Theorem 3.39 and deals with spectral measures of risk having spectral mass at 1.
This means that it considers a spectral risk measure functional Tk determined by
(pi , qi )i=1,...,k−1 , for which qi = 1 for one i. If this is the case and k = 2, Tk coincides with the mean functional, which is elicitable with scoring functions given in
Example 1.8. Hence, we suppose that for one j = 1, . . . , k − 1 we have qj = 1 and
pj ∈ (0, 1). Without loss of generality we assume j = k − 1. The following result is
a modified version of [16, Corollary 5.4] and we add a proof.
Corollary 3.42. Let Tk be a spectral risk measure functional of order k determined
by (pi , qi )i=1,...,k−1 , such that qk−1 = 1 and pk−1 ∈ (0, 1). Moreover, Rdefine the
functionals Ti (F ) := F ← (qi ), i = 1, . . . , k − 2 and Tk−1 (F ) := M (F ) := y dF (y).
Then the following assertions hold:
(i) The functional T := (T1 , . . . , Tk )> is elicitable.
(ii) Let S1 be an F-consistent scoring function for T̃ = (T1 , . . . , Tk−2 , T̃k−1 )> ,
where T̃k−1 is a spectral risk measure functional of order k − 1 determined
by (pi /(1 − pk−1 ), qi )i=1,...,k−2 . If additionally S2 is an F-consistent scoring
function for the mean, an F-consistent scoring function for T as defined in
(i) is given by
S(x, y) := S1 (x1 , . . . , xk−2 , (xk − pk−1 xk−1 )/(1 − pk−1 ), y) + S2 (xk−1 , y).
The function S is strictly consistent if S1 and S2 are strictly consistent.
Proof. We only need to show that S is (strictly) F-consistent. Let Tk determined
by (pi , qi )i=1,...,k−1 be as required and define p̃i := pi /(1 − λ) for i ∈ Ik−2 and
λ := pk−1 ∈ (0, 1). This gives the representation Tk = (1−λ)T̃k−1 +λM , where T̃k−1
is a spectral risk measure functional of order k − 1 determined by (p̃i , qi )i=1,...,k−2 .
Now define T̃i (F ) = F ← (qi ) for i ∈ Ik−2 and use Theorem 3.39 to obtain a (strictly)
F-consistent scoring function S1 : Rk−1 × O → R for T̃ = (T̃1 , . . . , T̃k−1 )> . Due
to Lemma 1.25, a consistent scoring function for the functional (T̃ , M ) is given by
S1 + S2 , where S2 is a consistent scoring function for M . This scoring function
is strictly consistent if S1 and S2 are strictly consistent. The proof concludes by
applying the revelation principle stated in Proposition 1.21. To this end, define
g : Rk → Rk ,

x 7→ g(x) := (x1 , . . . , xk−2 , xk , (1 − λ)xk−1 + λxk )> and

3.4. COMPARATIVE BACKTESTING

g −1 : Rk → Rk ,

69

x 7→ g −1 (x) := (x1 , . . . , xk−2 , (xk − λxk−1 )/(1 − λ), xk−1 )> ,

where g −1 is the inverse function of g. As a consequence, we obtain g((T̃ , M )) =
(T̃1 , . . . T̃k−2 , M, Tk )> = T and due to Proposition 1.21, (strictly) F-consistent scoring functions for g((T̃ , M )) are given by S(x, y) = (S1 + S2 )(g −1 (x), y), concluding
the proof.
Finally, we consider the special case (VaR, ES) and state which scoring functions
are (strictly) consistent for this functional. In light of Equation (3.4), this functional
can only take values in A0 := {x ∈ R2 | x1 ≤ x2 }. The following result is part of
[16, Corollary 5.5] and we add our own proof since the risk measures ES and VaR
have different sign in this work, see also Remark 3.2.
Corollary 3.43. For α ∈ (0, 1) define the functional T (F ) := (VaRα (F ), ESα (F ))> .
Then T is elicitable and F-consistent scoring functions S : A0 × O → R are given
by
S(x1 , x2 , y) = (1{y≤−x1 } − α)g1 (−x1 ) − 1{y≤−x1 } g1 (y)


1
+ g2 (−x2 ) x1 − x2 + 1{y≤−x1 } (−x1 − y) − G2 (−x2 ),
α
where g1 is increasing, G2 is differentiable, convex, and increasing, g2 = G02 and
1(−∞,u] g1 is F-integrable for any u ∈ R. If additionally g1 is strictly increasing, G2
is strictly convex and strictly increasing and all α-quantiles are unique, S is strictly
consistent.
Proof. Fix α ∈ (0, 1) and observe that −ESα is a spectral risk measure functional
of order 2 determined by (1, α). Hence, if all requirements are met, Theorem 3.39
proves the (strict) F-consistency of the scoring function
S̃ : {x ∈ R2 | x1 ≥ x2 } × O → R,

(x, y) 7→ S̃(x, y) := S(−x1 , −x2 , y)

for the functional (−VaRα , −ESα )> . Theorem 3.39 is indeed applicable since the
function H1,u : [u, ∞) → R is increasing for any u ∈ R due to the fact that g1 is
increasing and g2 is positive. Moreover, S̃ is strictly consistent if g1 and G2 are even
strictly increasing and G2 is strictly convex. An application of Proposition 1.21 with
g : {x ∈ R2 | x1 ≥ x2 } → A0 , (x1 , x2 ) 7→ (−x1 , −x2 ) now implies that S is (strictly)
consistent for (VaRα , ESα )> , which shows the claim.

3.4

Comparative backtesting

The previous sections in this chapter are concerned with measures of risk and the
question whether they are elicitable. The aim of this section is to clarify why elicitability is a desirable property of risk measures. To do so, we summarize the use of
elicitability for comparative backtesting, building on the results on forecast ranking and Diebold-Mariano tests which are discussed in Section 2.1. Moreover, the

3.4. COMPARATIVE BACKTESTING

70

arguments presented here can be found in Fissler et al. [17] as well as in Nolde and
Ziegel [39].
If the risk of a position Y is supposed to be measured by a risk measure ρ, for
example Value at Risk, it is necessary to select a procedure which outputs an estimate of ρ(Y ) for given input data. It is then common to check if the used model,
or more general the risk estimation procedure, is fit to correctly quantify the risk
ρ(Y ). This aim is often achieved by backtesting the model or estimation procedure.
As described in [17], a traditional backtest is designed to test the hypothesis H0 :
The used risk measurement procedure is correct. It is thus meant to assess whether a
good estimator for ρ(Y ) is used by the risk manager. Therefore, if the null hypothesis is rejected, the risk manager wants to rethink the measurement approach. If the
hypothesis is not rejected, the procedure is not changed. As remarked by Acerbi
and Szekely [2], elicitability is not needed for this traditional approach and tests
for this situation are found in McNeil et al. [37, Sec. 9.3] and [2]. However, when
the aim is to compare two different forecasts for ρ(Y ), elicitability of risk measures
becomes essential (see also the discussion in Subsection 2.1.4). This approach is
called comparative backtesting.
One example where the comparison of risk measurement procedures is important
is the regulation of the financial industry. There, a comparative backtest can be
applied to compare the risk measurement procedure used by a financial institution
with another benchmark procedure which was devised by some regulator. While the
firm may prefer its own risk measurement system, the regulator wants to avoid the
use of a misspecified procedure. Such a procedure might lower capital requirements,
giving the firm an unfair advantage over its competitors. Moreover, it might lead
to risky positions which remain hidden from the regulator and jeopardize financial
stability. It is thus convenient for a regulator to have a test at hand with which it
can be checked if an internal model is at least as good as the benchmark model.
In order to elaborate on this situation, we consider two risk measurement procedures
in the following which output forecasts of ρ(Yt ) for the time periods t = 1, . . . , n.
One is the procedure which is employed by a hypothetical financial institution and
is thus called ‘internal procedure’. The other one is the procedure of the regulator
who is in charge of supervising this firm and its risk management. It is thus called
‘standard procedure’. We assume that ρ is elicitable and fix a scoring function S
which is strictly consistent for ρ. In this setting, we now present the three-zone
approach as proposed by Fissler et al. [17]. At first, the test statistic for a DieboldMariano test is repeated. Similar to Subsection 2.1.3, define
r
Tn :=

n

n
1 X
p
K
=
(S(x̂t , yt ) − S(ẑt , yt )),
n
σ̂n2
σ̂n2 n t=1

where (x̂t )t=1,...,n are forecasts of the internal procedure, (ẑt )t=1,...,n are forecasts
of the standard procedure and (yt )t=1,...,n are realizations of the portfolio variable
Y at time points t = 1, . . . , n. Furthermore, assume that asymptotic normality as

3.4. COMPARATIVE BACKTESTING

71

stated in Theorem 2.9 holds for the statistic Tn . The following two hypotheses are
proposed by [17]:
H01 : The risk measure estimates of the internal procedure are at most as good
as the ones from the standard procedure.
H02 : The risk measure estimates of the internal procedure are at least as good
as the ones from the standard procedure.
Similar to Subsection 2.1.3 we reformulate the hypotheses into statements concerning the expected value of the mean score differences. Firstly, the hypothesis H01 is
stated as EKn ≥ 0. Due to the asymptotic normality of Kn , a test of H01 would
have a rejection region given by (−∞, C1 ], where C1 < 0 if the level of significance
is below 0.5. Repeating this argument for H02 gives EKn ≤ 0 and again, a rejection
region is given by [C2 , ∞), where C2 > 0 holds. All in all, the two hypotheses partition the real line into three zones given by (−∞, C1 ], (C1 , C2 ) and [C2 , ∞). This
results in the following interpretation given by [17].
• All values less or equal C1 make up the green zone. If the test statistic falls
into this interval, the hypothesis H01 is rejected and the risk measure estimates
of the internal procedure are considered more accurate than the estimates of
the standard procedure. The comparative backtest is passed.
• All values in (C1 , C2 ) constitute the yellow zone. If the test statistic takes
values in this interval, it is not possible to reject either H01 or H02 . Consequently, it is not clear which procedure is preferable. A conservative approach
would argue that the internal procedure was not proven to be better, hence
the backtest should be failed. Alternatively, it can be argued that it is not
clear whether the standard procedure is better, hence the backtest should be
passed.
• All values greater or equal C2 form the red zone. If the test statistic lies in
this interval, the hypothesis H02 is rejected and it is thus assumed that the
risk measure estimates of the internal procedure are worse than the estimates
of the standard procedure. The comparative backtest is failed.
Using this approach, a financial regulator can compare internal procedures of different institutions to a benchmark. If a firm fails the test, the regulator can require
the firm to adapt the benchmark procedure in order to ensure that risk measure
estimates are of sufficient quality.
To the best of our knowledge, this three-zone approach is not applied in practice
right now, however there are simulation studies for different settings. While Fissler
et al. [17] do comparisons based on i.i.d. data, Nolde and Ziegel [39] use the extension of the Diebold-Mariano framework by Giacomini and White [22] (as mentioned
in Subsection 2.1.4) and consider data generated by a stochastic process. Finally,
it is important to note that all drawbacks and/or remarks which are mentioned in
Subsection 2.1.4 remain valid for comparative backtesting of risk measures.

Chapter 4

Further topics and discussion
This chapter contains further topics related to elicitability and identifiability. At
first, functionals with elicitable components are studied and a well-known characterization of scoring functions is presented. Moreover, a special class of functionals
is introduced, which can be used to generalize the results of Fissler and Ziegel [16]
as stated in Theorem 3.39. A discussion about the presented results as well as the
remaining open problems finishes the chapter and this thesis.

4.1

Functionals with elicitable components

This section considers functionals T : F → A ⊆ Rk , for which all component functionals T1 , . . . , Tk are elicitable. As shown in Proposition 1.16, a necessary condition
for elicitability is the ‘convexity of level sets’, and as pointed out in Remark 1.17,
this condition is also sufficient in the one-dimensional case, as long as certain assumptions are met. For higher dimensions a similar characterization of elicitability
is unknown, thus an intuitive starting point to study higher order elicitability is to
consider functionals for which all components are elicitable. This section presents
one characterization of such functionals which is due to [16].
For k > 1 let Ti : F → Ai ⊆ R, i = 1, . . . , k, be functionals and define
T : F → A ⊆ A1 × . . . × Ak ,

F 7→ T (F ) := (T1 (F ), . . . , Tk (F ))> .

(4.1)

A standing assumption of this section is A = T (F), such that T is surjective.
Lemma 1.25 gives a sufficient condition for the elicitability of T : If all Ti , i =
1, . . . , k, are elicitable,
P then T is elicitable and (strictly) F-consistent scoring functions are given by ki=1 Si (xi , y), where Si is a (strictly) F-consistent scoring function for Ti . Following [16], we call scoring functions for T having this structure
separable. The central question which arises is: Are all strictly consistent scoring
functions for T separable?
The most important tool to answer this question is Osband’s principle (see Theorem 1.28 and Theorem 1.31), which states that under certain conditions there is a

72

4.1. FUNCTIONALS WITH ELICITABLE COMPONENTS

73

matrix-valued mapping h : int(A) → Rk×k such that
∇S̄(x, F ) = h(x)V̄ (x, F )
holds for all x ∈ int(A) and F ∈ F. In order to calculate S using Osband’s principle,
it is assumed that Ti is identifiable with oriented strict F-identification function
Vi for i = 1, . . . , k. This implies that T is identifiable with oriented strict Fidentification function
V : A × O → Rk ,

(x, y) 7→ V (x, y) := (V1 (x1 , y), . . . , Vk (xk , y))> ,

(4.2)

see part (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 1.25. Moreover, the following assumption which is
due to [16] is imposed on V and F.
Assumption (V4). Let Assumption (V3) hold. For all r ∈ {1, . . . , k} and for all
t ∈ int(A) ∩ T (F) there are F1 , F2 ∈ F with T (F1 ) = T (F2 ) = t such that
∂l V̄l (t, F1 ) = ∂l V̄l (t, F2 )

for l ∈ {1, . . . , k}\{r} and ∂r V̄r (t, F1 ) 6= ∂r V̄r (t, F2 )

hold.
Similar to [15], the following two examples calculate the partial derivatives of V̄ (·, F )
for quantiles and expectiles in order to show how Assumption (V4) looks like in these
special cases. They illustrate that Assumption (V4) is not only a condition on the
identification function V , but also on the richness of the class F.
Example 4.1 (Assumption (V4) for quantiles). Assume that all F ∈ F have continuous densities with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Let T be defined as in (4.1)
and suppose Ti (F ) = F ← (αi ) for αi ∈ (0, 1), i ∈ Ik := {1, . . . , k}. Moreover, let V
be defined as in (4.2). As mentioned in Subsection 2.2.1, an F-identification function for F ← (αi ) is defined via Vi (xi , y) := 1{y≤xi } − αi . For any F ∈ F and i ∈ Ik
we calculate the derivative ∂i V̄i (x, F ) = (F (xi ) − αi )0 = f (xi ), where f denotes the
density of F . Hence, Assumption (V4) states that for any r ∈ Ik and t ∈ int(A)
there exist F1 , F2 ∈ F having the same αi -quantiles ti , i ∈ Ik , and such that their
densities coincide at ti , i ∈ Ik \{r}, but not at tr .

Example 4.2 (Assumption (V4) for expectiles). Given the situation of the previous
example, assume additionally that all members of F have finite first moments. Let
T be defined as in (4.1) and suppose Ti (F ) = eτi (F ) for τi ∈ (0, 1), i ∈ Ik . As shown
in Lemma 2.20, Vi (xi , y) := |1{y≤xi } − τi |(xi − y) defines a strict F-identification
function for the τi -expectile. As above, let f denote the density of F and calculate
the derivative
Z ∞
Z x

d
∂i V̄i (x, F ) =
τi
(x − y)f (y) dy + (1 − τi )
(x − y)f (y) dy
dx
x
Z ∞
Z x −∞

d
=
− τi
yf (y) dy − (1 − τi )
yf (y) dy
dx
x
−∞

4.1. FUNCTIONALS WITH ELICITABLE COMPONENTS

+

74


d
x(τi (1 − F (x)) + (1 − τi )F (x)) = (1 − 2τi )F (x) + τi ,
dx

which implies ∂i V̄i (x, F ) = (1 − 2τi )F (xi ) + τi for any i ∈ Ik . Consequently, Assumption (V4) is more complicated for expectiles, but there is no obvious reason
why it should not be satisfied for certain classes F.

Remark 4.3. A simple but well-known situation where Assumption (V4) cannot be
satisfied for any class F occurs when T consists of expectations or ratios of expectations with the same denominator. To see this, let g : O → Rk and q : O → (0, ∞)
be F-integrable functions and set Ti (F ) := ḡi (F )/q̄(F ) for i = 1, . . . , k. Then an
identification function for Ti is given by Vi (xi , y) = gi (y) − xi q(y) and the derivative
of V̄i (xi , F ) depends only on F . Hence, Assumption (V4) can never be satisfied
for such functionals. At the same time there exist strictly F-consistent scoring
functions for T which are not separable. One example of such a scoring
P function
is obtained by choosing the (strictly convex) function f (x) = exp(− ki=1 xi ) in
Theorem 1.9.
In view of the previous examples and remarks, the next aim is to show that functionals as defined in (4.1) which satisfy Assumption (V4) only admit separable strictly
consistent scoring functions. To this end, a corollary of Osband’s principle is needed
in order to study the structure of the function h.
Corollary 4.4 (Fissler and Ziegel [16, Corollary 3.3]). Let T : F → A ⊆ Rk be a
surjective, elicitable, and identifiable functional with strict F-identification function
V : A × O → Rk and strictly F-consistent scoring function S : A × O → R. If S
and V satisfy the Assumptions (V1), (V3), and (S2) and h is the function from
Theorem 1.28, the second-order derivatives satisfy
∂m ∂l S̄(x, F ) =

=

k
X
i=1
k
X

∂m hli (x)V̄i (x, F ) + hli (x)∂m V̄i (x, F )

(4.3)

∂l hmi (x)V̄i (x, F ) + hmi (x)∂l V̄i (x, F ) = ∂l ∂m S̄(x, F )

i=1

for all l, m ∈ {1, . . . , k}, for all F ∈ F and almost all x ∈ int(A). In particular, the
identity holds for x = T (F ) ∈ int(A).
Proof. We argue similar to [16]. By using Assumptions (V1), (V3), and (S2), it is
possible to apply Theorem 1.28 and obtain a locally Lipschitz continuous h such
that ∇S̄(x, F ) = h(x)V̄ (x, F ) holds for any F ∈ F. Due to Assumption (S2),
∇S̄(·, F ) is also locally Lipschitz continuous, hence h and ∇S̄(·, F ) are differentiable
for a.e. x ∈ int(A) by Rademacher’s theorem (see Theorem A.6). Since S̄(·, F )
has differentiable partial derivatives almost everywhere, Schwarz’s theorem on the
symmetry of second derivatives (see for instance Grauert and Fischer [26, Satz 3.3])
gives (4.3) for any F ∈ F and a.e. x ∈ int(A). Since (S2) requires S̄(·, F ) to be
twice continuously differentiable in t = T (F ) ∈ int(A), Schwarz’s theorem shows
that (4.3) holds also in t.

4.1. FUNCTIONALS WITH ELICITABLE COMPONENTS

75

Using Assumption (V4) and Corollary 4.4, we prove the following proposition which
is the first part of [16, Prop. 4.2]. It states that under certain conditions the
connection function h from Osband’s principle has a simple diagonal structure.
Proposition 4.5. For r = 1, . . . , k let Tr : F → Ar ⊆ R be an elicitable and
identifiable functional with oriented strict F-identification function Vr : A × O → R.
Let T be defined as in (4.1) with strict F-identification function V as defined in
(4.2) and strictly F-consistent scoring function S : A × O → R. Moreover, let
Assumptions (V1), (V4), and (S2) hold, suppose A is connected and define the set
int(A)0r := {x ∈ R | ∃z ∈ int(A) : x = zr }.
Then the function h from Theorem 1.28 satisfies the following:
(i) For r = 1, . . . , k there are functions gr : int(A)0r → (0, ∞) such that hrr (x) =
gr (xr ) for any x ∈ int(A).
(ii) For r, l ∈ {1, . . . , k} and r 6= l we have hrl (x) = 0 for all x ∈ int(A).
Proof. Following the proof of [16], we begin by showing property (ii) and define
Ik := {1, . . . , k}. By construction, the identification function V satisfies
∂r V̄l (x, F ) = 0

for any r, l ∈ Ik , r 6= l and any F ∈ F, x ∈ int(A).

(4.4)

Using this fact and Equation (4.3) gives
hlr (t)∂r V̄r (t, F ) = hrl (t)∂l V̄l (t, F )

(4.5)

for any r, l ∈ Ik , r 6= l and any F ∈ F such that T (F ) = t ∈ int(A). If for any
t ∈ int(A) and r ∈ Ik distribution functions F1 , F2 ∈ F are chosen according to
Assumption (V4), Equation (4.5) implies
hlr (t)∂r V̄r (t, F1 ) = hrl (t)∂l V̄l (t, F1 ) = hrl (t)∂l V̄l (t, F2 ) = hlr (t)∂r V̄r (t, F2 )
for any l ∈ Ik , l 6= r. Consequently, we must have hlr (t) = 0 for l, r ∈ Ik , r 6= l and
due to the surjectivity of T we repeat this argument for any t ∈ int(A), which gives
hlr = 0 for l, r ∈ Ik , r 6= l.
For the first property, observe that part (ii) together with (4.4) implies that Equation (4.3) simplifies to
k
X
(∂l hri (x) − ∂r hli (x))V̄i (x, F ) = 0

(4.6)

i=1

for any F ∈ F, l, r ∈ Ik , r 6= l and a.e. x ∈ int(A). Assumption (V1) gives that for
a.e. x ∈ int(A) there are F1 , . . . , Fk ∈ F such that the vectors V̄ (x, F1 ), . . . , V̄ (x, Fk )
are linearly independent. If the matrix having these vectors as columns is called
V(x), Equation (4.6) implies
(∂l hri (x) − ∂r hli (x))>
i∈Ik V(x) = 0

4.1. FUNCTIONALS WITH ELICITABLE COMPONENTS

76

and since V(x) has full rank, it follows that ∂l hri (x) = ∂r hli (x) for any l, r, i ∈ Ik
and a.e. x ∈ int(A). Setting i = r and using (ii) this gives ∂l hrr (x) = ∂r hlr (x) = 0,
showing that hrr is constant in xl for any r, l ∈ Ik , r 6= l and a.e. x ∈ int(A). Since
A is connected and h is continuous, there is some function gr : int(A)0r → R such
that hrr (x) = gr (xr ) holds for all x ∈ int(A) and r ∈ Ik . It remains to be shown
that the functions gr , r ∈ Ik , are strictly positive. Using Lemma 1.15 (i) and the
strict consistency of S, it follows that for any v ∈ Sk−1 and F ∈ F, t = T (F ) the
function ΨF,v (s) := S̄(t + sv, F ) has a unique global minimum at s = 0. Choosing
F ∈ F with T (F ) = t ∈ int(A) and using the diagonal structure of h to compute
the derivative gives
Ψ0F,v (s)

>

= v ∇S̄(t + sv, F ) =

k
X

gr (tr + svr )V̄r (tr + svr , F )vr ,

r=1

which has to be positive for s > 0 and negative for s < 0 if s is small enough.
For r ∈ Ik we let vr be the r-th unit vector and conclude that Ψ0F,vr (s) = gr (tr +
s)V̄r (tr +s, F ) > 0 for small enough s > 0. Since Vr is an oriented strict identification
function, this gives gr (tr + s) > 0. Similarly, gr (tr + s) > 0 must hold for small
enough s < 0. Due to the surjectivity of T , this argument is repeated for any
tr ∈ int(A)0r and hence gr must be strictly positive for any r ∈ Ik .
The next corollary shows that all scoring functions are separable if Assumption (V4)
is satisfied. It uses the diagonal structure of h shown in Proposition 4.5 together
with the pointwise version of Osband’s principle, Theorem 1.31. The result and
its proof can be found in [16, Prop. 4.2 (ii)] and since Theorem 1.31 is used the
assumptions are slightly modified.
Corollary 4.6. Given the situation of Proposition 4.5, assume furthermore that
int(A) is a hyperrectangle and that Assumptions (F1), (VS1) and (B1) are satisfied.
Then S is a strictly F-consistent scoring function for T if and only if it is of the
form
k
X
S(x, y) =
Si (xi , y)
i=1

for almost all (x, y) ∈ A × O, where for any i = 1, . . . , k the function Si is a strictly
F-consistent scoring function for Ti .
P
Proof. At first, note that the function (x, y) 7→ ki=1 Si (xi , y) is strictly F-consistent
due to Lemma 1.25 (i). To show that this representation is necessary, observe that
all requirements are met to apply Proposition 4.5 as well as Theorem 1.31. This
implies the representation
S(x, y) =

k Z
X
i=1

xi

zi

gi (v)Vi (v, y) dv + a(y)

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

77

for a.e. (x, y) ∈ A × O, where z ∈ int(A) and a is some F-integrable function. If we
fix r ∈ Ik and define the scoring function
Z x
1
gr (v)Vr (v, y) dv + a(y),
Sr : Ar × O → R, (x, y) 7→ Sr (x, y) :=
k
zr
we only need to show that Sr is strictly F-consistent for Tr . To this end, let
F ∈ F be arbitrary, set t = T (F ) and let xr ∈ Ar , xr 6= tr be such that x̃ :=
(t1 , . . . , tr−1 , xr , tr+1 , . . . , tk )> ∈ A holds. Then the strict F-consistency of S implies
Z xr
gr (v)V̄r (v, F ) dv = S̄(x̃, F ) − S̄(t, F ) > 0,
S̄r (xr , F ) − S̄r (tr , F ) =
tr

finishing the proof.
In view of the previous corollary, we conclude that (under certain assumptions)
any strictly F-consistent scoring function for a vector consisting of quantiles or
expectiles is separable. Note that it is necessary to assume that F is rich enough,
in order to guarantee that Assumption (V4) is satisfied. Moreover, the domain A
cannot be chosen arbitrarily. To see this, assume k = 2 and define T1 (F ) := F ← (α1 )
and T2 (F ) := F ← (α2 ) for 0 < α1 < α2 < 1. Since s 7→ F ← (s) is monotone, we have
T1 (F ) < T2 (F ) for any F ∈ F, which implies that the functional (T1 , T2 )> can only
take values in Ã := {x ∈ R2 | x1 < x2 }. Since in the previous proof, Theorem 1.31 is
used and T is assumed to be surjective, the separability of S can only be shown for
sets A × O where int(A) is a hyperrectangle contained in Ã (see also Remark 1.32).
Naturally, the same reasoning applies to expectiles since they are also monotonic,
see Lemma 2.19 (ii).
As discussed in Remark 4.3, a separability statement as in the previous Corollary
cannot hold for functionals consisting of ratios of expectations with the same denominator. However, the techniques of the proof of Proposition 4.5 can be used to
prove a characterization of strictly consistent scoring functions for such functionals.
This can be found in Fissler and Ziegel [16, Prop. 4.4 (ii)] and a similar result is
stated in Frongillo and Kash [21, Thm. 13].

4.2

Perspectives on non-elicitable functionals

This thesis considers two important non-elicitable functionals, namely variance and
Expected Shortfall, which are both part of an elicitable vector. For the variance, it
is relatively simple to show this using the revelation principle, while the situation
is rather complicated for ES. This section discusses two concepts other than the
revelation principle which give arguments as to why a non-elicitable functional is
jointly elicitable. The first concept argues that both variance and ES are elicitable if
restricted to certain subclasses of F and conjectures that this can be extended to F.
The second one shows that variance and ES can be written as mean scores of strictly
F-consistent scoring functions and proves that such functionals are always jointly

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

78

elicitable. Before presenting any details, it should be remarked that, although both
perspectives are well suited for variance and ES, there are other functionals for
which it is unknown if they fit into any of the two concepts. For instance, as shown
by Heinrich [27], the mode functional is not elicitable and it is not known whether
it is part of an elicitable vector or not.

4.2.1

Conditional elicitability

For both variance and ES it can be argued that they fail to be elicitable because of
their dependence on other functionals, namely the mean and the quantile. In view of
this dependence, it is natural to define a concept which calls a functional T elicitable
conditional on an other elicitable functional T1 . Such a definition is proposed by
Emmer et al. [13] and we present the slightly more general formulation of [16].
Definition 4.7 (Conditional elicitability/identifiability). A functional T : F →
A ⊆ R is called conditionally elicitable of order k if there are k − 1 elicitable functionals Ti : F → Ai ⊂ R, i = 1, . . . , k − 1, such that for any (x1 , . . . , xk−1 )> ∈
A1 × . . . × Ak−1 the restriction of T to the class
F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) := {F ∈ F | T1 (F ) = x1 , . . . , Tk−1 (F ) = xk−1 }

(4.7)

is elicitable. Similarly, it is conditionally identifiable of order k if there are k − 1
identifiable functionals Ti , i = 1, . . . , k − 1, such that the restriction of T to any
class F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) is identifiable.
It is shown in Example 1.18 that the variance functional is not elicitable for certain
choices of F. However, in view of Example 1.20, it is straightforward to show that
the variance is conditionally elicitable, a fact which is also mentioned in [13].
Example 4.8 (Conditional elicitability of the variance). Let F be a class of distribution functions having finite second moments and let T be the variance functional
as
R defined in (1.5). If we choose z ∈R R and 2define the subclass Fz := {F ∈ F |
y dF (y) = z}, we obtain T|Fz (F ) = (y − z) dF (y). Since this is an expectation,
the restricted variance functional is elicitable and (strictly) Fz -consistent scoring
functions are given in Theorem 1.9. This shows that the variance is conditionally
elicitable of order 2.

Similar to Expected Shortfall, spectral risk measures (and thus also their functional
counterpart as introduced in Definition 3.38) fail to be elicitable for large enough
classes F (see Ziegel [46]). However, similar to the variance, ES is conditionally
elicitable, which is shown for continuous distribution functions in [13]. We extend
this result to spectral measures of risk and drop the continuity condition.
Lemma 4.9 (Conditional elicitability of spectral risk measure functionals). Let F
be a class of distribution functions having finite first moments. Fix k ≥ 2 and let
T be a spectral risk measure functional of order k determined by (pi , qi )i=1,...,k−1
which satisfies qi < 1 for i = 1, . . . , k − 1. If all distributions in F have unique
qi -quantiles, then T is conditionally elicitable of order k.

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

79

Proof. Suppose all distributions in F have unique qi -quantiles. Define the functionals Ti (F ) := F ← (qi ) for i = 1, . . . , k − 1, which are all elicitable relative to F due
to Theorem 2.14. For any (x1 , . . . , xk−1 )> ∈ Rk−1 let F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) be the restricted
class as defined in (4.7). Denoting the restriction of T to this class via T 0 , and using
Identity (3.5) gives
T 0 (F ) = −

k−1
X
i=1

ESqi (F )pi =

Z
k−1
X
pi
i=1

qi

O

y 1{y≤xi } + xi (qi − 1{y≤xi } ) dF (y),

which shows that the restricted functional reduces to an expectation. It is therefore
elicitable and (strictly) F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) -consistent scoring functions for T 0 are given in
Theorem 1.9. Consequently, T is conditionally elicitable of order k.
Remark 4.10. There is one single way to describe both the variance functional as well
as the spectral risk measure functional. To see this, let Ti : F → Ai , i = 1, . . . , k − 1
be elicitable functionals and define the function H : A1 × . . . × Ak−1 × O → R.
Moreover, suppose that H(x1 , . . . , xk−1 , ·) is F-integrable for any choice of xi ∈ Ai ,
i = 1, . . . , k − 1. Then the functional T considered in Example 4.8 and Lemma 4.9
can be written as T (F ) = H̄(T1 (F ), . . . , Tk−1 (F ), F ) for a certain choice of H and Ti .
This representation guarantees that the restricted functional reduces to an expected
value in both cases and is thus a sufficient condition for conditional elicitability of
order k.
The next example shows conditional elicitability of a functional which is different
from the functionals considered in Example 4.8 and Lemma 4.9. It shows that Definition 4.7 is not only applicable to functionals T for which T (F ) is an expectation,
but also to certain transformations of elicitable functionals.
Example 4.11 (Sum of functionals). Let F be a class of distribution functions.
Define two elicitable functionals Ti : F → Ai , i = 1, 2, and set T := T1 + T2 .
For any z ∈ A2 define the subclass Fz := {F ∈ F | T2 (F ) = z}. This gives
T|Fz (F ) = T1 (F ) + z, which is an affine transformation of the elicitable functional
T1 . Consequently, as noted in Remark 1.22, the revelation principle immediately
implies that T|Fz is elicitable and thus T is conditionally elicitable of order 2. This
argument can naturally be extended to show that the sum of k different functionals
is conditionally elicitable of order k. Instead of sums of elicitable functionals, other
transformations can also be considered as long as T|Fz can be connected to T1 via
a bijection in order to apply the revelation principle.

As mentioned in [16] without proof, every conditionally identifiable functional T is
part of an identifiable vector of functionals. Hence, we say that conditional identifiability implies joint identifiability. We state the precise result and prove it in
the next proposition, using an additional integrability assumption. This assumption is needed, because Definition 4.7 only guarantees the existence of F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) identification functions. That these functions are integrable for the whole class F
is not ensured, but necessary for F-identification functions.

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

80

Proposition 4.12. Let T : F → A be conditionally identifiable of order k. Moreover, suppose that for each subclass F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) as defined in (4.7) there exists an
F-integrable strict identification function. Then there is an identifiable functional
T 0 : F → A0 ⊆ Rk such that Tk0 = T .
Proof. Let T be conditionally identifiable with corresponding functionals Ti : F →
Ai ⊆ R and strict F-identification functions Vi for Ti , i = 1, . . . , k − 1. Moreover,
let F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) be defined as in Equation (4.7). Then for any (x1 , . . . , xk−1 )> ∈
A1 × . . . × Ak−1 there exists a strict F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) -identification function
V : A × O → R,

(z, y) 7→ V (x1 , . . . , xk−1 ; z, y)

for T . By assumption, it is even possible to choose V such that it is F-integrable.
We thus define the functional
T 0 : F → A1 × . . . × Ak−1 × A,

F 7→ T 0 (F ) := (T1 (F ), . . . , Tk−1 (F ), T (F ))> ,

which has a strict F-identification function given by
V 0 : A1 × . . . × Ak−1 × A × O → Rk ,
(x, y) 7→ V 0 (x, y) := (V1 (x1 , y), . . . , Vk−1 (xk−1 , y), V (x1 , . . . , xk−1 ; xk , y))> .
To see this, observe that the first k − 1 components of V̄ 0 (x, F ) are zero if and only
if F ∈ F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) is satisfied. But for such F , V̄ (x1 , . . . , xk−1 ; xk , F ) is zero if and
only if xk = T (F ), showing that T 0 is as desired.
The examples of variance and ES raise the question whether conditional elicitability
implies joint elicitability. Unfortunately, it is not possible to apply the technique
of the previous proof to scoring functions. To see this, let S(x1 , . . . , xk−1 ; ·, ·) be a
strictly F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) -consistent scoring function for T . When concerned with identification, it is irrelevant how V̄ (x1 , . . . , xk−1 ; ·, F ) behaves for F ∈
/ F(x1 ,...,xk−1 ) . For
scoring functions however, the values of S̄(x1 , . . . , xk−1 , ·, F ) for F ∈
/ F(x1 ,...,xk−1 )
might be high or low, making it difficult (or even impossible) to establish consistency. Nevertheless, there is also no known functional which disproves this conjecture, hence, as stated in [16], this is an open question.

4.2.2

Non-elicitable functionals with special structure

This section continues to discuss variance and Expected Shortfall and presents a
unified approach which can be used to show joint elicitability in both cases. Recall that Remark 4.10 discusses functionals which can be represented as T (F ) =
H̄(T1 (F ), . . . , Tk−1 (F ), F ) for elicitable functionals T1 , . . . , Tk−1 and an integrable
function H. This subsection begins by showing that such functionals are not only
conditionally elicitable, but even part of an elicitable vector of functionals if H is a
strictly consistent scoring function for (T1 , . . . , Tk−1 )> . This fact is then applied to
prove a generalization of Theorem 3.39.

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

81

Remark 4.13. A result similar to the one in the following proposition is stated by
Frongillo and Kash [20]. The author of this thesis found this reference a few days
before submission. The formulation of the proposition, the stated proof, and all
following results were developed independently of [20].
Proposition 4.14. Let T1 : F → A1 ⊆ Rk−1 be an elicitable functional with Fconsistent scoring functions S1 , . . . , Sn . Define a second functional T2 via
T2 : F → A2 ⊆ Rn ,

F 7→ (S̄1 (T1 (F ), F ), . . . , S̄n (T1 (F ), F ))> .

If S1 , . . . , Sn are all strictly F-consistent, the functional T : F → A1 × A2 , F 7→
(T1 (F ), T2 (F ))> is elicitable. Moreover, F-consistent scoring functions for T are
given by
S(x, y) = −

n
X

∂i f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 )(Si (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) − xk+i−1 )

i=1

− f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 ) +

n
X

ci Si (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y),

i=1

where c ∈ Rn and f : A2 → R is a differentiable and convex function such that
∂i f ≤ ci holds for i = 1, . . . , n. S is strictly consistent if S1 , . . . , Sn are strictly
consistent, f is strictly convex, and ∂i f < ci is satisfied.
Remark 4.15. Note that it is always possible to find a function f which satisfies
the requirements of Proposition 4.14. In the one-dimensional case we pick any
c ≥ 0, and a strictly convex function f satisfying f 0 < c is given by x 7→ exp(−x).
Another choice for c > 0 is given by g(x) = cx2 /(1 + |x|), see also [15, Corollary
n
2.16]. Similarly,
Pn if n > 1, we select c ∈ R with positive components and choose
x 7→ exp(− i=1 xi ). If c has strictly positive components, we again use g to
construct x 7→ g(kxk). This mapping is strictly convex due to the strict convexity
of g and k · k and the fact that g is strictly increasing on (0, ∞).
Proof. Firstly, observe that F-integrability of S follows from F-integrability of
S1 , . . . , Sn . To show consistency, fix F ∈ F, define t := T (F ) = (T1 (F ), T2 (F ))> ,
and choose x ∈ A1 × A2 . Moreover, fix c ∈ Rn and let f be a convex function such
that ∂i f ≤ ci for i ∈ In := {1, . . . , n} holds. Note that the definition of t implies
S̄i (t1 , . . . , tk−1 , F ) = tk+i−1 for any i ∈ In . This gives
S̄(x, F ) − S̄(t, F ) = f (tk , . . . , tk+n−1 ) − f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 ) +

n
X
i=1

where for any i ∈ In it holds that
Ri = −∂i f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 )(S̄i (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , F ) − xk+i−1 )
+ ∂i f (tk , . . . , tk+n−1 )(S̄i (t1 , . . . , tk−1 , F ) − tk+i−1 )

Ri ,

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

82

+ ci (S̄i (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , F ) − S̄i (t1 , . . . , tk−1 , F ))
= −∂i f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 )(tk+i−1 − xk+i−1 )
+ (ci − ∂i f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 ))(S̄i (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , F ) − S̄i (t1 , . . . , tk−1 , F ))
≥ −∂i f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 )(tk+i−1 − xk+i−1 ).

(4.8)

Notice that Inequality (4.8) follows from ∂i f ≤ ci and
Pnthe fact that Si is a scoring
function for T1 for i ∈ In . The convexity of f gives i=1 Ri ≥ f (xk , . . . , xk+n−1 ) −
f (tk , . . . , tk+n−1 ), proving that S is an F-consistent scoring function for T . If we
assume that S1 , . . . , Sn are strictly F-consistent and ∂i f < ci , i ∈ In , is satisfied,
we obtain a strict inequality in (4.8).
P If we additionally assume that f is strictly
convex, then also the estimate for ni=1 Ri is strict, hence, these three conditions
ensure strict consistency of S.
In the following we only consider the interesting special case n = 1. In this situation,
the functional T takes the simpler form
T : F → A1 × A2 ,

F 7→ T (F ) = (T1 (F ), S̄1 (T1 (F ), F ))>

and the (strictly) consistent scoring functions S for T simplify to
S(x, y) = −f (xk ) − f 0 (xk )(S1 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) − xk ) + cS1 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y),
where c ∈ R and f : A2 → R is a differentiable and convex function such that f 0 ≤ c
holds. The rest of this section applies Proposition 4.14 in order to show the joint
elicitability of the two functionals variance and Expected Shortfall.
Example 4.16. Let F be a class of distribution
functions with finite second moR
ments. If we define T1 : F → R, F 7→ y dF (y), a strictly F-consistent scoring
function for T1 is given by S(x, y) := (x − y)2 . The functional T2 (F ) := S̄(T1 (F ), F )
is then the variance functional, which is not elicitable (see Example 1.18 and Remark 1.19). However, the functional (T1 , T2 )> is elicitable, which is shown in Example 1.23, but also follows directly from Proposition 4.14.

Remark 4.17. It is possible to consider an equivalent formulation of the consistent
scoring functions of Proposition 4.14. For any choice of strictly convex f : A2 → R
and c ∈ R with f 0 < c we define x 7→ f˜(x) := f (x) − cx and this function is again
strictly convex and also strictly decreasing. Moreover, we may add any consistent
scoring function for T1 to the scoring function S without affecting its consistency.
Hence, the (strictly) consistent scoring functions for T given in Proposition 4.14
take the form
S(x, y) = −f (xk ) − f 0 (xk )(S1 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) − xk ) + S∗ (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y),
where f : A2 → R is differentiable, strictly convex, and strictly decreasing and
S∗ : A1 ×O → R is another consistent scoring function for T1 . If T1 is also identifiable
with strict identification function V1 , it is clear that V : A1 × A2 × O → R2 given by
V (x, y) = (V1 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y), S1 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) − xk )>

(4.9)

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

83

is a strict F-identification function for T . Note that this construction does not
require S to be a scoring function.
Proposition 4.14 is not only of theoretical interest, since it can also be used to extend
the joint elicitability of spectral risk measure functionals to classes F containing
discontinuous distribution functions. This extension is based on the fact that the
Expected Shortfall at level α ∈ (0, 1) of F is the minimizer of S̄(·, F ), where S is
the (strictly) consistent scoring function for the α-quantile determined by the choice
g(x) = x in Theorem 2.14. This argument is also used in the proof of Theorem 3.30
and is well-known in risk management (see for instance Rockafellar and Uryasev [41,
Sec. 4]).
Corollary 4.18. Let F be a class of distribution functions having finite first moments. Define the functionals T1 , . . . , Tk−1 , Tk and T as in Theorem 3.39, but on
the larger class F. If all members of F have unique qi -quantiles, then T is elicitable.
Moreover, an F-consistent scoring function S : A × O → R for T is given by
!
k−1
X

pi
0
S(x, y) = − f (xk ) + f (xk ) xk +
(1{y≤xi } − qi )xi − 1{y≤xi } y
qi
i=1

+c

k−1
X
pi
i=1


(1{y≤xi } − qi )xi − 1{y≤xi } y ,

qi

where c ∈ R and f is convex and differentiable and satisfies −f 0 ≤ c. If all qi quantiles are unique and f is strictly convex with −f 0 < c, then S is strictly Fconsistent.
Proof. For any i ∈ Ik−1 := {1, . . . , k − 1} we have qi ∈ (0, 1) and Ti (F ) = F ← (qi )
and set Ai := Ti (F). Theorem 2.14 and the fact that all members of F have finite
first moments imply that the function S̃i (x, y) = (1{y≤x} − qi )(x − y) is an Fconsistent scoring function for Ti . By Lemma 1.12 (i), it is possible to first subtract
the function y 7→ qi y from S̃i and then scale it with pi /qi and the result remains
F-consistent. Consequently, for any i ∈ Ik−1 , the function
pi
pi
Si : Ai × O → R, (x, y) 7→ Si (x, y) = (1{y≤x} − qi )x − 1{y≤x} y
qi
qi
is F-consistent for Ti . It is strictly consistent if the qi -quantile P
is unique for all
k−1
Si (xi , y) is
F ∈ F. It follows from Lemma 1.25 that the function S 0 (x, y) := i=1
>
an F-consistent scoring function for the functional (T1 , . . . , Tk−1 ) . The next step
is to represent the spectral risk measure functional Tk by using S 0 . Equation (3.5)
leads to the representation
−Tk (F ) =

=

k−1
X
i=1
k−1
X
i=1

ESqi (F )pi
pi
qi

Z
O

−1{y≤F ← (qi )} y + (1{y≤F ← (qi )} − qi )F ← (qi ) dF (y)

4.2. PERSPECTIVES ON NON-ELICITABLE FUNCTIONALS

84

Z X
k−1
pi
pi
=
(1{y≤F ← (qi )} − qi )F ← (qi ) − 1{y≤F ← (qi )} y dF (y)
qi
O i=1 qi
Z X
k−1
=
Si (F ← (qi ), y) dF (y)
O i=1
0
←

= S̄ (F (q1 ), . . . , F ← (qk−1 ), F ),
which shows that Proposition 4.14 is applicable with n = 1 and gives F-consistent
scoring functions for the functional T 0 := (T1 , . . . , Tk−1 , −Tk )> . Choosing a convex
and differentiable function f˜ and a constant c ∈ R such that f˜0 ≤ c holds, implies
that
S 00 (x, y) := −f˜(xk ) − f˜0 (xk )(S 0 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) − xk ) + cS 0 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y)
is F-consistent for T 0 . An application of the revelation principle as stated in Proposition 1.21 leads to an F-consistent scoring function for (T1 , . . . , Tk−1 , Tk )> given
by
S(x, y) := −f˜(−xk ) − f˜0 (−xk )(S 0 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) + xk ) + cS 0 (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y).
If for all F ∈ F all qi -quantiles are unique, strict F-consistency carries over from Si ,
i ∈ Ik−1 to S 0 by Lemma 1.25. If we additionally assume that f˜ is strictly convex and
satisfies f˜0 < c, strict F-consistency carries over from S 0 to S 00 by Proposition 4.14
and from S 00 to S by the revelation principle. Finally, if we define the (strictly)
convex function f via f (x) = f˜(−x) and require −f 0 ≤ c or −f 0 < c instead of
f˜0 ≤ c or f˜0 < c, respectively, the function S remains (strictly) F-consistent and
has the desired representation.
Remark 4.19. We compare the strictly consistent scoring function of Theorem 3.39
to the one of Corollary 4.18 and call them S1 and S2 , respectively. At first we argue
that the strict consistency of S2 can be shown using Theorem 3.39. To this end, let
a strictly convex f and c ∈ R be given and set Gk = f as well as gr (v) = c(pr /qr )v
for r = 1, . . . , k − 1. Since gk = f 0 > −c is fulfilled, we obtain that the function
Hr,u (v) = v

pr
pr
gk (u) + gr (v) = v (gk (u) + c)
qr
qr

is strictly increasing in v, hence Theorem 3.39 is applicable.
Conversely, we consider if strict consistency of S1 can be shown using Corollary 4.18.
To this end, let strictly increasing functions g1 , . . . , gk−1 and a strictly convex Gk
be given. In order to obtain the same representation as in Corollary 4.18, it is
necessary to set c = 0, f = Gk and add the function
0

S (x1 , . . . , xk−1 , y) :=

k−1
X
i=1

(1{y≤xi } − qi )gi (xi ) − 1{y≤xi } gi (y),

4.3. DISCUSSION

85

which is a strictly consistent scoring function for the functional (T1 , . . . , Tk−1 )> as
defined in Theorem 3.39. Due to c = 0 it is also needed that gk = f 0 > 0 is
fulfilled. However, the requirement that Hr,u is strictly increasing does not suffice
to guarantee this inequality. Hence, Corollary 4.18 cannot be used in general to
show the strict consistency of S1 , showing that the classes of strictly consistent
scoring functions obtained from both results are different. This is intuitive, since
Theorem 3.39 is designed to handle spectral risk measure functionals and uses the
condition on Hr,u to exploit the structure of strictly consistent scoring functions for
quantiles. In contrast, the scoring functions of Corollary 4.18 are derived by using
Proposition 4.14, a result which holds for a larger class of functionals.
It would be desirable to conclude this section with a characterization of all strictly
consistent scoring functions for the functional T given in Proposition 4.14. One
idea to do this is to use the strict identification function given in (4.9) together with
Osband’s principle, similar to Section 4.1 or [16, Thm. 5.2 (iii)]. Unfortunately, a
straightforward adaptation of arguments used in the proofs of these results is not
fruitful, since we neither have a ‘simple’ identification function as in Section 4.1, nor
can we exploit special properties of S as in [16, Thm. 5.2 (iii)]. A suitable approach
to tackle this problem is yet to be found.

4.3

Discussion

In this thesis we reviewed results concerning higher order elicitability and identifiability and studied the connection of these concepts to quantitative risk management. We discussed the properties of the three risk measures Value at Risk,
Expected Shortfall and Expectile Value at Risk and reached the conclusion that
Expected Shortfall, or more general spectral measures of risk, possess the most satisfying properties. Taking elicitability into account, we showed that only the other
two risk measures have this property. Intuitively, the reason for this is that the two
properties of coherence and elicitability are conflicting, a fact already recognized by
Weber [45]. Interestingly, Expectile Value at Risk is the only risk measure which
manages the balancing act between both requirements. Nevertheless, Corollary 3.43
showed that moving from one-dimensional elicitability to higher order elicitability
solves this problem, in the sense that Expected Shortfall is jointly elicitable with
Value at Risk. More generally, Theorem 3.39 proves that all spectral measures of
risk with discrete spectrum are part of an elicitable vector. The motivation for these
results is to be able to perform comparative backtesting for Expected Shortfall estimates. However, joint elicitability implies that only joint estimates of Expected
Shortfall and Value at Risk can be compared. The differences of such a test to a
comparison of one-dimensional estimates demand further attention. Closely connected is the problem of choosing a suitable strictly consistent scoring function in
applications.
On the theoretical side of this thesis, we began by discussing new as well as classical results related to elicitability and identifiability. The most important one is the

4.3. DISCUSSION

86

multivariate version of Osband’s principle which is due to Fissler and Ziegel [16].
We presented a version on the level of expectations in Theorem 1.28 and a pointwise
version in Theorem 1.31. By discussing and proving the latter, we drew attention
to the difficulties appearing when moving from an integrated to a pointwise version.
We proposed additional assumptions on the identification function V as well as on
the domain A and illustrated why they are reasonable. Nevertheless, we applied
both versions of Osband’s principle in order to show a characterization of functionals with elicitable components which was stated in [16]. We continued by discussing
further ideas related to non-elicitable functionals, one of which is conditional elicitability. While we are able to prove that conditional identifiability implies joint
identifiability, we also recognize that a similar statement for elicitability requires
more work. It is thus an interesting open question which requirements are needed
such that conditionally elicitable functionals are also jointly elicitable. Moreover,
we proved Proposition 4.14, which allowed us to argue that variance as well as
Expected Shortfall are jointly elicitable because they are mean scores of elicitable
functionals, namely mean and Value at Risk. In Corollary 3.39 we used this result to extend the joint elicitability of spectral risk measure functionals to classes
containing discontinuous distribution functions.
Finally, there are many other topics as well as open problems which were not discussed in this thesis. One of the most important ones is definitely the problem
of characterizing all elicitable functionals, possibly subject to some regularity conditions. The one-dimensional version of such a characterization was mentioned in
Remark 1.17, but not discussed in detail, since the proof of this result (as done
in Steinwart et al. [43]) is extensive enough to fill a separate thesis. In the multidimensional case, little is known on how elicitable functionals can be characterized,
since the conditions of the one-dimensional case are not sufficient as shown by
Frongillo and Kash [21, Example 1]. Another important problem is to find necessary and sufficient conditions for non-elicitable functionals to be jointly elicitable.
We mentioned a class of functionals having this property in Subsection 4.2.2, but
a thorough study of this topic does not exist yet. Maybe a starting point to study
this problem consists of establishing general conditions such that the functionals
defined in Remark 4.10 are part of an elicitable vector.

Appendix A

Auxiliary results
In this chapter, we provide some results which are needed throughout the thesis,
but may interfere with the flow of reading. If not stated otherwise, all proofs and
examples are our own contribution.
Theorem A.1 (Skorohod representation). Let (Xn )n∈N be a sequence of real-valued
random variables such that Xn → X in distribution as n → ∞. Then there exist a
probability space (Ω, A , P) and real-valued random variables Y, Y1 , Y2 , . . . defined on
it such that under P
(i) Y =d X, Yn =d Xn for all n ∈ N, and
(ii) Yn → Y almost surely.
Proof. See for example van der Vaart [44, Thm. 2.19] or the more general version
in Kallenberg [30, Thm. 4.30].
Lemma A.2. Let 0 ∈ int(conv(x1 , . . . , xk+1 )) for xi ∈ Rk , i = 1, . . . , k + 1 and fix
an arbitrary
xk+2 ∈ Rk . Then there exist coefficients λi > 0, i = 1, . . . , k + 2 such
Pk+2
that 0 = i=1 λi xi holds.
Proof. Due
Pto 0 ∈ int(conv(x1 , . . . , xk+1 )) there are γi > 0, i ∈ Ik+1 := {1, . . . , k+1}
such that k+1
i=1 γi xi = 0 is fulfilled. Simultaneously, this condition implies that the
set {x1 , . . . , xk+1 } contains k linearly independent vectors and P
hence spans Rk . We
thus find some βi , i ∈ Ik+1 such that the representation xk+2 = k+1
i=1 βi xi holds and
use its coefficients to define λk+2 := min{γi /|βi | | βi 6= 0, i ∈ Ik+1 }/2. Moreover, we
define λi := γi − λk+2 βi for i ∈ Ik+1 . For any i ∈ Ik+1 such that βi > 0 we thus
γi βi
have λi = γi − λk+2 βi ≥ γi − 2|β
> 0 and hence λi > 0 for all i ∈ Ik+1 . Finally we
i|
calculate
k+2
k+1
k+1
X
X
X
λi xi = λk+2 xk+2 +
γi xi − λk+2
βi xi = 0,
i=1

i=1

which proves that λi , i ∈ Ik+2 is as desired.

87

i=1

88

For the following two results we remark that all matrix norms are equivalent, hence
we do not explicitly choose one.
Lemma A.3. For k, d ∈ N, let V : Rk → Rd×d be a mapping which is continuous
at a point x ∈ Rk and for which V(x) is an invertible matrix. Then there is an open
set Ux containing x and such that V(z) is an invertible matrix for all z ∈ Ux .
Proof. Let k, d ∈ N and V be given and define the mapping D : Rk → R, z 7→
det(V(z)). Since V(x) is invertible we have D(x) 6= 0. Moreover, D is a continuous mapping, because V is continuous and A 7→ det(A) is a polynomial in the
components of A. Now assume by means of contradiction that for any open set
Ux containing x there is a z ∈ Ux for which V(z) is singular. This implies that
there is a sequence (zn )n∈N which satisfies det(V(zn )) = 0 for all n ∈ N as well as
zn → x. Using the continuity of D, we obtain D(x) = limn→∞ D(zn ) = 0, which is
a contradiction, and thus the claim is proved.
Lemma A.4. Let k ∈ N and GL(k) ⊂ Rk×k be the space of regular k × k-matrices.
The mapping I : GL(k) → GL(k) defined via A 7→ A−1 has continuously differentiable components.
Proof. For fixed k ≥ 2 and A ∈ GL(k) the components of A−1 can be represented
using Cramer’s rule (see for example Liesen and Mehrmann [36, Corollary 7.23]),
which sates that
(−1)i+j det(A−(i,j) )
(A−1 )ij =
det(A)
where A−(i,j) ∈ Rk−1×k−1 is the matrix obtained from A by deleting the i-th row
and j-th column. Since det(A) 6= 0 holds for all A ∈ GL(k) we see that each
component of A−1 is a continuously differentiable mapping.
The following result states the relation between the lower and upper quantile function.
Lemma A.5. Let X be a real-valued random variable and let the lower and upper
quantile functions F ← and F → be defined as in Definition 2.10. Then for any
← (α) = −F → (1 − α).
α ∈ (0, 1) we have F−X
X
Proof. For any α ∈ (0, 1) we calculate
←
F−X
(α) = inf{z | F−X (z) ≥ α}

= inf{z | P(X < −z) ≤ 1 − α}
= − sup{z | P(X < z) ≤ 1 − α}
= − inf{z | P(X ≤ z) > 1 − α} = −FX→ (1 − α)
and hence it remains to be shown that
s := sup{z | P(X < z) ≤ 1 − α} = inf{z | P(X ≤ z) > 1 − α} =: i

89

is true. To prove this, suppose by way of contradiction that s < i. Then there is a
z ∈ (s, i) such that P(X ≤ z) ≤ 1 − α and P(X < z) > 1 − α is satisfied, which is
a contradiction. If on the other hand we have i < s, then there is a z ∈ (i, s) such
that P(X ≤ z) > 1 − α is fulfilled. But then we have for any ε > 0 the inequality
P(X < z + ε) ≥ P(X ≤ z) > 1 − α, which contradicts the definition of s.
Theorem A.6 (Rademacher). If U ⊆ Rn is open and f : U → Rk is Lipschitz
continuous, then f is differentiable almost everywhere in U .
Proof. See for example Federer [14, Thm. 3.1.6].
The following theorem is a version of Klenke [31, Thm. 6.28] which gives sufficient
conditions for interchanging integration and differentiation.
Theorem A.7. For k, d, m ∈ N, take sets A ⊂ Rk and O ⊂ Rd and equip O with
the Borel σ-algebra O. Fix a Borel measure µ on (O, O) and let f : A × O → Rm be
a mapping with the following properties.
(i) For all x ∈ A the mapping y 7→ f (x, y) is µ-integrable.
(ii) For µ-almost all y ∈ O the mapping f (·, y) : int(A) → Rm , x 7→ f (x, y) is
∂f
continuously differentiable with partial derivatives ∂x
, i = 1, . . . , k.
i
(iii) There is a µ-integrable function h such that for all x ∈ A and all i = 1, . . . , k
∂f
we have | ∂x
(x, ·)| ≤ h µ-almost everywhere.
i
∂f
(x, y) is µ-integrable
Then for any x ∈ int(A) and i ∈ {1, . . . , k} the mapping y 7→ ∂x
i
R
m
and the function F : A → R , x 7→ O f (x, y) dµ(y) is continuously differentiable
with partial derivatives
Z
∂F
∂f
(x) =
(x, y) dµ(y).
∂xi
∂x
i
O

Proof. Proceed as in the proof of [31, Thm. 6.28] for every partial derivative,
using the k-dimensional mean value theorem of calculus. Moreover, use dominated
convergence for the continuity of the partial derivatives.
The following example shows that Assumption (iii) of Theorem A.7 is indeed necessary to ensure differentiability of F .
Example A.8. This example shows that integration over a family of continuously
differentiable functions does not necessarily deliver a continuously differentiable
function. More precisely, define f via
3

x2
f : R × (0, 1] → R, (x, y) 7→ f (x, y) := 1 − 2
1[−y,y] (x).
y
For fixed y, and up to normalization, x 7→ f (x, y) is known as the triweight kernel
used in kernel density estimation. The function f is displayed in Figure A.8 for three

1.0

90

0.0

0.2

f(x, y)
0.4
0.6

0.8

y=1
y = 0.5
y = 0.1

−1.0

−0.5

0.0
x

0.5

1.0

Figure A.1: Plot of the function f (x, y) from Example A.8 for different values of y.
choices of y. For any y ∈ (0, 1], the map x 7→ f (x, y) is continuously differentiable
and for any x ∈ R, the map y 7→ f (x, y) is integrable with respect to the Lebesgue
measure. If we now define the new function F via
Z
F : R → R,

x 7→ F (x) :=

1

f (x, y) dy,
0

then it fails to be differentiable in x = 0. In order to prove this, we start by
explicitly computing F . Taking the indicator function into account, we obtain for
any 0 < x ≤ 1
Z
F (x) =
x

1

x2
1− 2
y

3

y=1

x2 x4
x6
dy = y + 3 − 3 + 5
y
y
5y y=x
16
1
= 1 − x + 3x2 − x4 + x6 ,
5
5

and analogously for any −1 ≤ x < 0 we calculate
F (x) = 1 +

16
1
x + 3x2 − x4 + x6 .
5
5

Finally, we observe that for any x ∈
/ [−1, 1] it holds
have the representation

1 6
2
4
 1 − 16
5 x + 3x − x + 5 x ,
16
2
4
1 + 5 x + 3x − x + 15 x6 ,
F (x) =

0,

that F (x) = 0. All in all, we
if x ∈ [0, 1]
if x ∈ [−1, 0)
else

and this shows, that F is not differentiable in x = 0. This happens although for
any x ∈ R the first partial derivative is integrable with respect to y, and it holds

91

that
Z
0

1

∂f
16
6
(x, y) dy = −sign(x) + 6x − 4x3 + x5
∂x
5
5

for x ∈ [−1, 1]\{0}. But the map y 7→ supx∈R |∂f /∂x (x, y)| is not integrable on
(0, 1], and therefore differentiability cannot be carried over from f to F using dominated convergence.


Notation
EX
Var(X)
P, P, Q
FP
int(M )
conv(M )
im(A)
ker(A)
dim(A)
det(M )
In
f (x, ·)
f|M

1M

kxk
Sn−1
. . . dF (x)
ḡ(F )
∇f
a.s.
a.e.
w.l.o.g.
w.r.t.
A]B
F←
F→
eτ (F )
σ(. . .)
B(R)
B(A)
U([a, b])
N (µ, σ 2 )
Φ

Expectation of the random variable X
Variance of the random variable X
Probability measures
Cumulative distribution function x 7→ P ((−∞, x])
Interior of the set M
Convex hull of the set M (see below)
Image of linear mapping A
Kernel of linear mapping A
Dimension of the linear subspace A ⊆ Rk
Determinant of the matrix M ∈ Rk×k
Index set {1, 2, . . . , n}
Mapping y 7→ f (x, y)
Restriction of the mapping f to the set M
Characteristic function of the set
pM
Euclidean norm of x ∈ Rn , i.e. x21 + . . . + x2n .
(n − 1)-Sphere in Rn , that is {x ∈ Rn | kxk = 1}.
Lebesgue-Stieltjes-Integral with respect to F
Lebesgue-Stieltjes-Integral of g with respect to F
Gradient of the function f
almost sure
almost every
without loss of generality
with respect to
Union of the sets A and B with A ∩ B = ∅
Lower quantile function of distribution function F , p. 31
Upper quantile function of distribution function F , p. 31
τ -expectile of F , p. 36
σ-algebra generated by collection of mappings or sets
Borel σ-algebra on R
Borel σ-algebra on A ⊂ R
Continuous uniform distribution on the interval [a, b]
Normal distribution with expected value µ and variance σ 2
Distribution function of N (0, 1)

92

93

δx
f+
f−
P ⊗Q
f (x+)
f (x−)
X =d F
X =d Y
P(A)
VaRα (X)
EVaRτ (X)
ESα (X)

Dirac measure at the point x
Positive part of f , i.e. f + (x) = max(f (x), 0)
Negative part of f , i.e. f − (x) = min(f (x), 0)
Product measure of P and Q
Right-hand limit of f at x
Left-hand limit of f at x
The random variable X has distribution function F
X and Y have the same distribution
Power set of the set A
Value at Risk at level α of X, p. 54
Expectile Value at Risk at level τ of X, p. 61
Expected Shortfall at level α of X, p. 57

The convex hull of a set M is defined as
( n
)
n
X
X
conv(M ) :=
λi xi n ∈ N, x1 , . . . , xn ∈ M, λ1 , . . . , λn ≥ 0,
λi = 1 .
i=1

i=1

Bibliography
[1] Carlo Acerbi. Spectral measures of risk: A coherent representation of subjective
risk aversion. J. Bank. Financ., 26(7):1505–1518, 2002.
[2] Carlo Acerbi and Balazs Szekely. Backtesting Expected Shortfall. Risk Mag.,
27:76–81, 2014.
[3] Carlo Acerbi and Dirk Tasche. Expected Shortfall: A natural coherent alternative to Value at Risk. Economic Notes, 31(2):379–388, 2002.
[4] Carlo Acerbi and Dirk Tasche. On the coherence of Expected Shortfall. J.
Bank. Financ., 26(7):1487–1503, 2002.
[5] Philippe Artzner, Freddy Delbaen, Jean-Marc Eber, and David Heath. Coherent measures of risk. Math. Finance, 9(3):203–228, 1999.
[6] Fabio Bellini and Elena Di Bernardino. Risk management with expectiles. The
European Journal of Finance, 23(6):487–506, 2017.
[7] Fabio Bellini and Valeria Bignozzi. On elicitable risk measures. Quant. Finance,
15(5):725–733, 2015.
[8] Freddy Delbaen. Coherent risk measures on general probability spaces. In
Advances in finance and stochastics: Essays in Honour of Dieter Sondermann,
pages 1–37. Springer, Berlin, 2002.
[9] Freddy Delbaen. A remark on the structure of expectiles. ArXiv e-prints, July
2013. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.5881.pdf.
[10] Francis X. Diebold and Roberto S. Mariano. Comparing predictive accuracy.
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(3):253–263, 1995.
[11] Richard T. Durrett. Probability : theory and examples. Duxbury advanced
series. Thomson Brooks/Cole, third edition, 2005.
[12] Werner Ehm, Tilmann Gneiting, Alexander Jordan, and Fabian Krüger. Of
quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations
and forecast rankings. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol., 78(3):505–562,
2016.

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY

95

[13] Susanne Emmer, Marie Kratz, and Dirk Tasche. What is the best risk measure
in practice? A comparison of standard measures. J. Risk, 18(2):31–60, 2015.
[14] Herbert Federer. Geometric measure theory. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 153. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York,
1969.
[15] Tobias Fissler and Johanna F. Ziegel. Higher order elicitability and Osband’s
principle. ArXiv e-prints, March 2015. URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.
08123v3.pdf.
[16] Tobias Fissler and Johanna F. Ziegel. Higher order elicitability and Osband’s
principle. Ann. Statist., 44(4):1680–1707, 2016.
[17] Tobias Fissler, Johanna F. Ziegel, and Tilmann Gneiting. Expected Shortfall is
jointly elicitable with Value at Risk - Implications for backtesting. Risk Mag.,
pages 58–61, January 2016.
[18] Hans Föllmer and Alexander Schied. Convex measures of risk and trading
constraints. Finance Stoch., 6(4):429–447, 2002.
[19] Hans Föllmer and Alexander Schied. Stochastic Finance : An Introduction in
Discrete Time. De Gruyter Textbook. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 4th
edition, 2016.
[20] Rafael Frongillo and Ian A. Kash. On elicitation complexity. January
2015. Preprint, available at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/
wp-content/uploads/2016/04/elic-complex.pdf.
[21] Rafael Frongillo and Ian A. Kash. Vector-valued property elicitation. J. Mach.
Learn. Res. Workshop Conf. Proc., 40:1–18, 2015.
[22] Raffaella Giacomini and Halbert White. Tests of conditional predictive ability.
Econometrica, 74(6):1545–1578, 2006.
[23] Tilmann Gneiting. Making and evaluating point forecasts. J. Amer. Statist.
Assoc., 106(494):746–762, 2011.
[24] Tilmann Gneiting. Quantiles as optimal point forecasts. International Journal
of Forecasting, 27(2):197 – 207, 2011.
[25] Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E. Raftery. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 102(477):359–378, 2007.
[26] Hans Grauert and Wolfgang Fischer. Differential- und Integralrechnung. II,
volume 36 of Heidelberger Taschenbücher [Heidelberg Paperbacks]. SpringerVerlag, Berlin-New York, corrected edition, 1978.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[27] Claudio Heinrich. The mode functional is not elicitable.
101(1):245–251, 2014.
[28] Edwin Hewitt. Integration by parts for Stieltjes integrals.
Monthly, 67:419–423, 1960.

96

Biometrika,
Amer. Math.

[29] Peter J. Huber and Elvezio M. Ronchetti. Robust statistics. Wiley Series
in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, second
edition, 2009.
[30] Olav Kallenberg. Foundations of modern probability. Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2002.
[31] Achim Klenke. Probability theory. Universitext. Springer, London, second
edition, 2014.
[32] Roger Koenker. Quantile regression, volume 38 of Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
[33] Roger Koenker and Gilbert Bassett, Jr. Regression quantiles. Econometrica,
46(1):33–50, 1978.
[34] Shigeo Kusuoka. On law invariant coherent risk measures. In Advances in
mathematical economics, Vol. 3, pages 83–95. Springer, Tokyo, 2001.
[35] Nicolas Lambert. Elicitation and evaluation of statistical forecasts, July
2013. Preprint, available at http://web.stanford.edu/~nlambert/papers/
elicitation.pdf.
[36] Jörg Liesen and Volker Mehrmann. Linear Algebra. Springer Undergraduate
Mathematics Series. Springer International Publishing, first edition, 2015.
[37] Alexander J. McNeil, Rüdiger Frey, and Paul Embrechts. Quantitative risk
management. Princeton Series in Finance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, revised edition, 2015.
[38] Whitney K. Newey and James L. Powell. Asymmetric least squares estimation
and testing. Econometrica, 55(4):819–847, 1987.
[39] Natalia Nolde and Johanna F. Ziegel. Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation. ArXiv e-prints, August 2016. URL https:
//arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05498.pdf.
[40] Kent Osband and Stefan Reichelstein. Information-eliciting compensation
schemes. Journal of Public Economics, 27(1):107–115, 1985.
[41] R.Tyrrell Rockafellar and Stanislav Uryasev. Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. J. Bank. Financ., 26(7):1443–1471, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

[42] Robert H. Shumway and David S. Stoffer. Time series analysis and its applications. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer, New York, third edition, 2011.
[43] Ingo Steinwart, Chloé Pasin, Robert Williamson, and Siyu Zhang. Elicitation
and identification of properties. J. Mach. Learn. Res. Workshop Conf. Proc.,
35:1–45, 2014.
[44] A. W. van der Vaart. Asymptotic statistics, volume 3 of Cambridge Series in
Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[45] Stefan Weber. Distribution-invariant risk measures, information, and dynamic
consistency. Math. Finance, 16(2):419–441, 2006.
[46] Johanna F. Ziegel. Coherence and elicitability. Math. Finance, 26(4):901–918,
2016.

