MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037229987 · doi:10.1214/009117904000001053

Choquet expectation and Peng’s g-expectation

2005· article· en· W2037229987 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zengjing Chen, Tao Chen, Matt Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Probability · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsFoundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsChoquet integralRandom variableClass (philosophy)Mathematical economicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsFuzzy logicArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider two ways to generalize the mathematical expectation of a random variable, the Choquet expectation and Peng’s g-expectation. An open question has been, after making suitable restrictions to the class of random variables acted on by the Choquet expectation, for what class of expectation do these two definitions coincide? In this paper we provide a necessary and sufficient condition which proves that the only expectation which lies in both classes is the traditional linear expectation. This settles another open question about whether Choquet expectation may be used to obtain Monte Carlo-like solution of nonlinear PDE: It cannot, except for some very special cases.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations66
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of ProbabilitySame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207