MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414592730 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.09865

Linear fractional relative risk aversion

2025· preprint· en· W4414592730 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristian Behrens, Yasusada Murata

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonopolistic competitionConstant (computer programming)Risk aversion (psychology)Aggregate (composite)Isoelastic utilityMarginal utilityCompetition (biology)Measure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterize the family of utility functions satisfying linear fractional relative risk aversion (LFRRA) in terms of the Gauss hypergeometric functions. We apply this family, which nests various utility functions used in different strands of literature, to monopolistic competition and obtain the profit-maximizing price by generalizing the Lambert W function. We let firm-level data decide whether the RRA in each sector or in the aggregate economy is increasing, decreasing, or constant, which in turn determines whether markups are decreasing, increasing, or constant with respect to marginal costs.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.276 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207