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 OpenAlexafffund
Tianxiang Shi, David Landriault

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.044
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207