MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136139078 · doi:10.1017/asb.2012.2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE TIME TO RUIN IN SOME SPARRE ANDERSEN RISK MODELS

2013· article· en· W2136139078 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLaplace transformRuin theoryApplied mathematicsMathematicsFirst-hitting-time modelExponential functionLaplace distributionRisk modelExponential distributionSeries (stratigraphy)Distribution (mathematics)Calculus (dental)StatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The finite-time ruin problem, which implicitly involves the inversion of the Laplace transform of the time to ruin, has been a long-standing research problem in risk theory. Existing results in the Sparre Andersen risk models are mainly based on an exponential assumption either on the interclaim times or on the claim sizes. In this paper, we utilize the multivariate version of Lagrange expansion theorem to obtain a series expansion for the density of the time to ruin under a more general distribution assumption, namely the combination of n exponentials. A remark is further made to emphasize that this technique can also be applied to other areas of applied probability. For instance, the proposed methodology can be used to obtain the distribution of some first passage times for particular stochastic processes. As an illustration, the duration of a busy period in a queueing risk model will be examined.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.233 · 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