MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004913923 · doi:10.1239/aap/1127483749

Ruin in the perturbed compound Poisson risk process under interest force

2005· article· en· W2004913923 on OpenAlexafffund
Jun Cai, Hailiang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Applied Probability · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRuin theoryMathematicsFirst-hitting-time modelRisk processPoisson distributionDifferentiable functionCompound Poisson processConstant (computer programming)Cox processOscillation (cell signaling)Applied mathematicsRisk modelMathematical analysisPoisson processStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study ruin in a perturbed compound Poisson risk process under stochastic interest force and constant interest force. By using the technique of stochastic control, we show that the ruin probability in the perturbed risk model is always twice continuously differentiable provided that claim sizes have continuous density functions. In the perturbed risk model, ruin may be caused by a claim or by oscillation. We decompose the ruin probability into the sum of two ruin probabilities; one is the probability that ruin is caused by a claim and the other is the probability that ruin is caused by oscillation. Integrodifferential equations for these ruin probabilities are derived when the interest force is constant. When the claim sizes are exponentially distributed, explicit solutions of the ruin probabilities are derived from the integrodifferential equations. Numerical examples are given to illustrate the effects of diffusion volatility and interest force on the ruin probabilities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Applied ProbabilitySame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207