MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Joint Distributions of the Time to Ruin, the Surplus Prior to Ruin, and the Deficit at Ruin in the Classical Risk Model

2009· article· en· W1879969047 on OpenAlexafffund
David Landriault, Gordon E. Willmot

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRuin theoryFirst-hitting-time modelErlang (programming language)MathematicsJoint probability distributionRisk modelPoisson distributionDistribution (mathematics)Mathematical economicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seminal paper by Gerber and Shiu (1998) unified and extended the study of the event of ruin and related quantities, including the time at which the event of ruin occurs, the deficit at the time of ruin, and the surplus immediately prior to ruin. The first two of these quantities are fundamentally important for risk management techniques that utilize the ideas of Value-at-Risk and Tail Value-at-Risk. As is well known, calculation of these and related quantities requires knowledge of the associated probability distributions. In this paper we derive an explicit expression for the joint (defective) distribution of the time to ruin, the surplus immediately prior to ruin, and the deficit at ruin in the classical compound Poisson risk model. As a by-product, we obtain expressions for the three bivariate distributions generated by the time to ruin, the surplus prior to ruin, and the deficit at ruin. Finally, we consider mixed Erlang claim sizes and show how the joint (defective) distribution of the time to ruin, the surplus prior to ruin, and the deficit at ruin can be calculated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207