Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal stochastic control methods are used to examine decumulation strategies for a defined contribution (DC) plan retiree. An initial investment horizon of 15 years is considered, since the retiree will attain this age with high probability. The objective function reward measure is the expected sum of the withdrawals. The objective function tail risk measure is the expected linear shortfall with respect to a desired lower bound for wealth at 15 years. The lower bound wealth level is the amount which is required to fund a lifelong annuity 15 years after retirement, which generates the required minimum cash flows. This ameliorates longevity risk. The controls are the withdrawal amount each year, and the asset allocation strategy. Maximum and minimum withdrawal amounts are specified. Specifying a short initial decumulation horizon, results in the optimal strategy achieving: (i) median withdrawals at the maximum rate within 2–3 years of retirement (ii) terminal wealth larger than the desired lower bound at 15 years, with greater than [Formula: see text] probability and (iii) median terminal wealth at 15 years considerably larger than the desired lower bound. The controls are computed using a parametric model of historical stock and bond returns, and then tested in bootstrap resampled simulations using historical data. At the 15 year investment horizon, the retiree has the option of (i) continuing to self-manage the decumulation policy or (ii) purchasing an annuity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".