Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a completely new and straightforward method for simulating the joint law of the position and running maximum at a fixed time of a general Levy process with a view to application in insurance and financial mathematics. Although different, our method takes lessons from Carr's so-called "Canadization" technique as well as Doney's method of stochastic bounds for Levy processes; see Carr [Rev. Fin. Studies 11 (1998) 597-626] and Doney [Ann. Probab. 32 (2004) 1545-1552]. We rely fundamentally on the Wiener-Hopf decomposition for Levy processes as well as taking advantage of recent developments in factorization techniques of the latter theory due to Vigon [Simplifiez vos Levy en titillant la factorization de Wiener-Hopf (2002) Laboratoire de Mathematiques de L'INSA de Rouen] and Kuznetsov [Ann. Appl. Probab. 20 (2010) 1801-1830]. We illustrate our Wiener-Hopf Monte Carlo method on a number of different processes, including a new family of Levy processes called hypergeometric Levy processes. Moreover, we illustrate the robustness of working with a Wiener-Hopf decomposition with two extensions. The first extension shows that if one can successfully simulate for a given Levy processes then one can successfully simulate for any independent sum of the latter process and a compound Poisson process. The second extension illustrates how one may produce a straightforward approximation for simulating the two-sided exit problem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".