A unified approach for drawdown (drawup) of time-homogeneous Markov processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drawdown (respectively, drawup) of a stochastic process, also referred as the reflected process at its supremum (respectively, infimum), has wide applications in many areas including financial risk management, actuarial mathematics, and statistics. In this paper, for general time-homogeneous Markov processes, we study the joint law of the first passage time of the drawdown (respectively, drawup) process, its overshoot, and the maximum of the underlying process at this first passage time. By using short-time pathwise analysis, under some mild regularity conditions, the joint law of the three drawdown quantities is shown to be the unique solution to an integral equation which is expressed in terms of fundamental two-sided exit quantities of the underlying process. Explicit forms for this joint law are found when the Markov process has only one-sided jumps or is a Lévy process (possibly with two-sided jumps). The proposed methodology provides a unified approach to study various drawdown quantities for the general class of time-homogeneous Markov processes.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".