Monetary value measures in a category of probability spaces
Takanori Adachi, Yoshihiro Ryu

TL;DR
This paper extends the concept of monetary value measures from a categorical framework to the broader setting of probability spaces, enhancing the theoretical foundation for financial risk assessment.
Contribution
It generalizes monetary value measures by shifting from a specific category to the category of probability spaces, broadening their applicability.
Findings
Extended monetary value measures to probability spaces
Provided a categorical framework for financial risk measures
Enhanced theoretical understanding of monetary value in probabilistic contexts
Abstract
We generalize the notion of monetary value measures developed with category theory in [Adachi, 2014] by extending their base category from the category \c{hi} to the category of probability spaces Prob introduced in [Adachi and Ryu, 2016].
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic · Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization · Advanced Topology and Set Theory
Monetary Value Measures in a Category of Probability Spaces
Takanori Adachi and Yoshihiro Ryu
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1 Nojihigashi, Kusatsu, Shiga, 525-8577 Japan
Takanori Adachi ¡[email protected]¿
Yoshihiro Ryu ¡[email protected]¿
Key words and phrases:
conditional expectation, category theory monetary value measure,
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 91B30, 16B50; secondary 91B82, 18B99
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26330026.
In this paper, we generalize the notion of monetary value measures developed in [Adachi, 2014] by extending their base category from the category to the category introduced in [Adachi and Ryu, 2016].
For those who are not familiar with financial risk management and/or monetary value measures, please refer to Section 2 of [Adachi, 2014].
1. A Category of Probability Spaces
In this section we overview a theory of a category of probability spaces. Please refer to [Adachi and Ryu, 2016] for the full discussions and proofs about the contents of this section.
Let , and be probability spaces.
Definition 1.1**.**
[Category ]
A category is the category whose objects are all probability spaces and the set of arrows between them are defined by
[TABLE]
where is a symbol corresponding uniquely to a measurable function .
We fix the state space be a measurable space for a simplicity. is a vector space consisting of -valued random variables such that , while is a vector space consisting of -valued random variables such that has a finite value. For two random variables and , we write when , and write when . Note that and iff . and are quotient spaces and , respectively.
Definition 1.2**.**
[Functor ]
A functor is defined by:
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be an arrow in . Then, for any there exists a such that for every
[TABLE]
Moreover, is determined uniquely up to -null sets. In other words, if there are two both satisfying (1.1), then .
We write a version of this by , and call it a conditional expectation of along . Therefore,
[TABLE]
Proposition 1.4**.**
Let and be arrows in like:
[TABLE]
- (1)
For , . 2. (2)
For , implies . 3. (3)
For , .
Definition 1.5**.**
[Functor ]
A functor is defined by:
[TABLE]
We call a conditional expectation functor.
Proposition 1.6**.**
Let be a -arrow, and .
- (1)
Linearity: 2. (2)
Positivity: if .
Theorem 1.7**.**
Let be a -arrow , and . Then we have
[TABLE]
2. Monetary Value Measures
A monetary value measure is defined as a presheaf on .
Definition 2.1**.**
[Monetary Value Measures]
A ** monetary value measure ** is a contravariant functor
[TABLE]
defined by
[TABLE]
where satisfies
- (1)
Cash invariance:
, 2. (2)
Monotonicity:
, 3. (3)
Normalization: if is measure-preserving, 4. (4)
implies if is measure-preserving.
We sometimes write for for explicitly noting that arrows mapped by are determined by .
At this point, we do not require the monetary value measures to satisfy familiar conditions such as concavity or positive homogeneity. Instead of doing so, we want to see what kind of properties are deduced from this minimal setting.
The most crucial point of Definition 2.1 is that does not move only in the direction of time but also moves over several absolutely continuous probability measures internally. This means we have a possibility to develop risk measures including ambiguity within this formulation.
Another key point of Definition 2.1 is that is a contravariant functor. So, for any pair of arrows
\textstyle{\bar{X}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{f^{-}}$$\textstyle{\bar{Y}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{g^{-}}$$\textstyle{\bar{Z}}
in , we have
[TABLE]
As an example of monetary value measures, we will introduce a notion of entropic value measures that depend on conditional expectations of along .
Before introducing entropic value measures, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be a measure-preserving arrow in . Then, implies .
Proof.
Since , there exists a non-negative such that . Then, by Proposition 1.6,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
since is measure preserving. Therefore, we obtain . Similarly, we have . So we get . ∎
Proposition 2.3**.**
*[Entropic Value Measures]
Let be a -arrow, and be a positive real number. Define a function by*
[TABLE]
Then, is a monetary value measure. We call this an entropic value measure.
Proof.
Let
\textstyle{\bar{X}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{f^{-}}$$\textstyle{\bar{Y}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{g^{-}}$$\textstyle{\bar{Z}}
be arrows in . In order to show that becomes a contravariant functor, we need to check three points: , , and that implies for every . But, they are straightforward consequences of Proposition 1.4. So, we forward to check if satisfies the four conditions of Definition 2.1.
Firstly, we show that for and . But by Theorem 1.7, we have
[TABLE]
Secondly, we show that implies for . But this comes from Proposition 1.6.
Thirdly, we show that if is measure-preserving. But this is straightforward like the following:
[TABLE]
Lastly, we need to show that implies when is measure-preserving. But this comes from Lemma 2.2. ∎
Here are some properties of monetary value measures.
Theorem 2.4**.**
*Let be a monetary value measure, and
\textstyle{\bar{X}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{f^{-}}$$\textstyle{\bar{Y}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{g^{-}}$$\textstyle{\bar{Z}}
be arrows in .*
- (1)
If is measure-preserving, we have . 2. (2)
Idempotence: If is measure-preserving, we have
. 3. (3)
Local property: \Phi f^{-}\big{[}1_{f^{-1}(A)}v_{1}+1_{f^{-1}(A^{c})}v_{2}\big{]}_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{Y}}}=[1_{f^{-1}(A)}]_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{X}}}\Phi f[v_{1}]_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{Y}}}+[1_{f^{-1}(A^{c})}]_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{X}}}\Phi f[v_{2}]_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{Y}}}. 4. (4)
Dynamic programming principle: If is measure-preserving,
* for .* 5. (5)
Time consistency:
.
Proof.
- (1)
For , \Phi f^{-}(Lf^{-}[u]_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{X}}})=\big{[}\varphi^{f^{-}}(u\circ f)\big{]}_{\sim_{\mathbb{P}_{X}}} But, by cash invariance and normalization, we have . 2. (2)
Immediate by (1). 3. (3)
First, we show that for any and ,
[TABLE]
Since , for every we have . Therefore,
[TABLE]
Then noting that , we have the following sequence of equations by cash invariance and monotonicity.
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
By multiplying , we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, we get (2.3).
Next by using (2.3) twice, we have
[TABLE] 4. (4)
By (2), we have for . So by (2.1),
[TABLE] 5. (5)
Assume . Then, by monotonicity and (2.1),
[TABLE]
∎
In Theorem 2.4, two properties, dynamic programming principle and time consistency are usually introduced as axioms ([Detlefsen and Scandolo, 2006]). But, we derive them naturally here from the fact that the monetary value measure is a contravariant functor.
Before ending this section, we mention an interpretation of the Yoneda lemma in our setting.
Theorem 2.5**.**
*[The Yoneda Lemma]
For any monetary value measure and an object in , there exists a bijective correspondence specified by the following diagram:*
[TABLE]
where is a natural transformation defined by for any in , . Moreover, the correspondence is natural in both and .
It makes sense to consider the representable functor as a generalized time domain with time horizon . Then a natural transformation from to can be seen as a stochastic process that is (in a sense) adapted to , and its corresponding -measurable random variable represents a terminal value (payoff) at the horizon.
The Yoneda lemma says that we have a bijective correspondence between those stochastic processes and random variables.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[Adachi, 2014] Adachi, T. (2014). Toward categorical risk measure theory. Theory and Applications of Categories , 29(14):389–405.
- 2[Adachi and Ryu, 2016] Adachi, T. and Ryu, Y. (2016). A category of probability spaces. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03630.
- 3[Detlefsen and Scandolo, 2006] Detlefsen, K. and Scandolo, G. (2006). Conditional and dynamic convex risk measures. Working paper.
