MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091125820 · doi:10.1142/s0218202504003581

LAPLACE TRANSFORMS AND INSTALLMENT OPTIONS

2004· article· en· W2091125820 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaplace transformPartial differential equationValuation (finance)Free boundary problemDerivative (finance)Position (finance)Boundary value problemValuation of optionsMathematicsIntegral equationPut optionBarrier optionMathematical economicsApplied mathematicsEconomicsMathematical optimizationActuarial scienceMathematical analysisFinanceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An installment option is a derivative financial security where the price is paid in installments instead of as a lump sum at the time of purchase. The valuation of these options involves a free boundary problem in that at each installment date, the holder of the derivative has the option of continuing to pay the premiums or allowing the contract to lapse, and the decision will depend upon whether the present value of the expected pay-off is greater or less than the present value of the remaining premiums. Using a model installment option where the premiums are paid continuously rather than on discrete dates, an integral equation is derived for the position of this free boundary by applying a partial Laplace transform to the underlying partial differential equation for the value of the security. Asymptotic analysis of this integral equation allows us to deduce the behavior of the free boundary close to expiry.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.251 · 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