MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110410763 · doi:10.1239/jap/996986650

Boundary crossing probability for Brownian motion

2001· article· en· W2110410763 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

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsBoundary (topology)PiecewiseBrownian motionPiecewise linear functionMathematical analysisMonte Carlo methodApplied mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wang and Pötzelberger (1997) derived an explicit formula for the probability that a Brownian motion crosses a one-sided piecewise linear boundary and used this formula to approximate the boundary crossing probability for general nonlinear boundaries. The present paper gives a sharper asymptotic upper bound of the approximation error for the formula, and generalizes the results to two-sided boundaries. Numerical computations are easily carried out using the Monte Carlo simulation method. A rule is proposed for choosing optimal nodes for the approximating piecewise linear boundaries, so that the corresponding approximation errors of boundary crossing probabilities converge to zero at a rate of O (1/ n 2 ).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.226 · 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