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

Choquet expectation and Peng’s g-expectation

2005· article· en· W2037229987 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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