MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077473002 · doi:10.1239/jap/1238592120

Dependent Risk Models with Bivariate Phase-Type Distributions

2009· article· en· W2077473002 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrei L. Badescu, Eric C.K. Cheung, David Landriault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMathematicsBivariate analysisRuin theoryRisk modelPenalty methodApplied mathematicsType (biology)Joint probability distributionFlow (mathematics)Extension (predicate logic)EstimatorConnection (principal bundle)Mathematical economicsStatisticsMathematical optimizationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider an extension of the Sparre Andersen insurance risk model by relaxing one of its independence assumptions. The newly proposed dependence structure is introduced through the premise that the joint distribution of the interclaim time and the subsequent claim size is bivariate phase-type (see, e.g. Assaf et al. (1984) and Kulkarni (1989)). Relying on the existing connection between risk processes and fluid flows (see, e.g. Badescu et al. (2005), Badescu, Drekic and Landriault (2007), Ramaswami (2006), and Ahn, Badescu and Ramaswami (2007)), we construct an analytically tractable fluid flow that leads to the analysis of various ruin-related quantities in the aforementioned risk model. Using matrix-analytic methods, we obtain an explicit expression for the Gerber–Shiu discounted penalty function (see Gerber and Shiu (1998)) when the penalty function depends on the deficit at ruin only. Finally, we investigate how some ruin-related quantities involving the surplus immediately prior to ruin can also be analyzed via our fluid flow methodology.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations72
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207