MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bilateral risk sharing in a comonotone market with rank-dependent utilities

2022· article· en· W4297141705 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tim J. Boonen, Wenjun Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueInsurance Mathematics and Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsRank (graph theory)BusinessEconomicsActuarial scienceEconometricsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies a bilateral risk-sharing problem in which the two agents are rank-dependent utility maximizers, and the market restricts risk allocations to be comonotonic. We first characterize the optimal risk allocation in an implicit way through the calculus of variations. Then, based on the element-wise maximizer of an unconstrained problem, we partition the support of loss into disjoint pieces and unveil the explicit structure of the optimal risk allocation over each piece. Our methodology reduces the dimension of the problem. We show the applicability of our results via two examples in which both agents use exponential utilities and use convex power or inverse-S-shaped probability weighting functions.<br/><br/>

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsurance Mathematics and EconomicsSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207