MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417294761 · doi:10.1016/j.spa.2025.104852

Optimal prediction of the last r-excursion time of Brownian motion models

2025· article· en· W4417294761 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohamed Amine Lkabous, José M. Pedraza

Bibliographic record

VenueStochastic Processes and their Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Southampton
KeywordsOptimal stoppingExcursionBrownian motionLipschitz continuityStopping timeGeometric Brownian motionConstant (computer programming)Boundary (topology)Brownian excursionWiener process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the optimal prediction of the last $r$-excursion time for a Brownian motion model. The last $r$-excursion time, denoted by $l_{r}$, refers to the right endpoint of the last negative excursion lasting longer than a constant $r>0$. It reduces to the standard last passage time when $r\downarrow 0$. For a Brownian motion with drift $\mu >0$ and volatility $\sigma >0$, our goal is to identify an optimal stopping time that minimizes the ($L_{1}$) distance from the last $r$-excursion time $l_{r}$. We find that the optimal stopping barrier exhibits two distinct structures: a constant barrier (characterized as a solution of a non-linear equation) or a moving barrier (characterized by the unique solution to an integral equation) depending on the ratio $R=\frac{\mu \sqrt{r}}{\sigma }$ which integrates a firm's financial profitability, volatility, and risk tolerance to financial distress. To obtain the optimal stopping time, we examine the smooth fit condition, Lipschitz continuity of the barrier, and probability regularity of the boundary points. As an application in risk management, we develop a decision rule that informs the timing of business expansion and contraction.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueStochastic Processes and their ApplicationsSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207