Phase-type Approximations to Finite-time Ruin Probabilities in the Sparre-Andersen and Stationary Renewal Risk Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper extends the “Erlangization” idea introduced by Asmussen, Avram, and Usabel (2002) to the Sparre-Andersen and stationary renewal risk models. Erlangization yields an asymptotically-exact method for calculating finite time ruin probabilities with phase-type claim amounts. The method is based on finding the probability of ruin prior to a phase-type random horizon, independent of the risk process. When the horizon follows an Erlang-l distribution, the method provides a sequence of approximations that converges to the true finite-time ruin probability as l increases. Furthermore, the random horizon is easier to work with, so that very accurate probabilities of ruin are obtained with comparatively little computational effort. An additional section determines the phase-type form of the deficit at ruin in both models. Our work exploits the relationship to fluid queues to provide effective computational algorithms for the determination of these quantities, as demonstrated by the numerical examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".