Paper detail

Mitigating optimistic bias in entropic risk estimation and optimization

The entropic risk measure is widely used in high-stakes decision-making across economics, management science, finance, and safety-critical control systems because it captures tail risks associated with uncertain losses. However, when data are limited, the empirical entropic risk estimator, formed by replacing the expectation in the risk measure with a sample average, underestimates true risk. We show that this negative bias grows superlinearly with the standard deviation of the loss for distributions with unbounded right tails. We further demonstrate that several existing bias reduction techniques developed for empirical risk either continue to underestimate entropic risk or substantially overestimate it, potentially leading to overly risky or overly conservative decisions. To address this issue, we develop a parametric bootstrap procedure that is strongly asymptotically consistent and provides a controlled overestimation of entropic risk under mild assumptions. The method first fits a distribution to the data and then estimates the empirical estimator's bias via bootstrapping. We show that the fitted distribution must satisfy only weak regularity conditions, and Gaussian mixture models offer a convenient and flexible choice within this class. As an application, we introduce a distributionally robust optimization model for an insurance contract design problem that incorporates correlations in household losses. We show that selecting regularization parameters using standard cross-validation can lead to substantially higher out-of-sample risk for the insurer if the validation bias is not corrected. Our approach improves performance by recommending higher and more accurate premiums, thereby better reflecting the underlying tail risk.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.