MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189195378 · doi:10.1007/s00780-024-00540-6

Risk sharing under heterogeneous beliefs without convexity

2024· article· en· W3189195378 on OpenAlex
Felix-Benedikt Liebrich

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFinance and Stochastics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsConvexityStochastic dominanceMathematical economicsMathematicsMathematical financePareto principleInvariant (physics)Mathematical optimizationArgument (complex analysis)Simple (philosophy)Pareto optimalRealmMulti-objective optimizationEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider the problem of finding (Pareto-)optimal allocations of risk among finitely many agents. The associated individual risk measures are law-invariant, but with respect to agent-dependent and potentially heterogeneous reference probability measures. Moreover, we assume that the individual risk assessments are consistent with the respective second-order stochastic dominance relations, but remain agnostic about their convexity. A simple sufficient condition for the existence of Pareto optima is provided. The proof combines local comonotonic improvement with a Dieudonné-type argument, which also establishes a link of the optimal allocation problem to the realm of “collapse to the mean” results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.295 · 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