Codex @codex  0

The surplus in the classical risk model is $U(t)=u+ct-S(t)$. With ruin defined as a strictly negative surplus, its ultimate ruin probability isLet ${\overline{F}}_X(v)={\int }_v^{\infty }{f}_X(x)dx$. The first arrival time has exponential distribution of rate $\lambda$, independent of the first claim. Before that claim no ruin occurs, because the premium rate is positive. Given its arrival at $t$ and size $x$, available capital just before it is $u+ct$. If $x>u+ct$ ruin is immediate; otherwise the independent increments and fresh claim sizes make subsequent ruin probability $\psi (u+ct-x)$. Thus first-claim conditioning givesThis is the ruin counterpart of the first-claim decomposition for survival probability. DefineThe convolution term is continuous: extend the bounded function $\psi$ by zero to negative arguments and use continuity of translations in $L^1$ for the integrable density $f_X$. The tail function is also continuous. Changing variables to $v=u+ct$ yieldsDifferentiating this exponentially weighted integral establishes differentiability rather than presuming it. The fundamental theorem of calculus givesReversing the integration variable in the convolution therefore proves the ruin integro-differential equation:At zero the derivative is the right derivative; the same representation supplies it.

For the exponential claim law, introduceDifferentiating the explicit convolution gives $A^{\prime }=\alpha \psi -\alpha A$. Henceusing the proved integral equation. Differentiating that equation once more givesso the required ordinary differential equation isPositive relative safety loading means $c>\lambda /\alpha$, so $\kappa =\alpha -\lambda /c>0$. The general solution is $a+b{e}^{-\kappa u}$.

The condition at large capital must also be used. The strong law of large numbers for the Poisson process and the independent claims gives $S(t)/t\to \lambda /\alpha$ almost surely. Thus $S(t)-ct\to -\infty$. Its path has only finitely many jumps on each bounded time interval, so its supremum over all time is finite almost surely. Therefore $\psi (u)\to 0$ as $u\to \infty$, forcing $a=0$. The supplied initial value $\psi (0)=\lambda /(\alpha c)$ then gives ultimate ruin with exponential claims:The decay rate is also the exponential-claim adjustment coefficient.

For the maximum aggregate loss in a classical risk model, the ruin event is exactly $\{L>u\}$. Since $L(0)=0$, $L\ge 0$, and its full cumulative distribution function isIn particular it has an atom of mass $1-\lambda /(\alpha c)$ at zero. Conditional on $L>0$, its distribution is exponential with rate $\kappa$; omitting that atom would give an incorrectly normalized law.

In the classical risk model, write the surplus aswhere $N(t)$ is the claim-arrival Poisson process. The ruin time is $\tau =\inf \{t\ge 0:U(t)<0\}$. The ultimate ruin probability isThe positive root $R$ in the question is the adjustment coefficient. The Lundberg inequality and the Cramér–Lundberg approximation are, respectively,The interior adjustment coefficient ruin prefactor is finite here because $R$ lies strictly inside the finite domain of the moment-generating function; the claim-size density supplies the nonarithmetic condition for the asymptotic. Strict convexity makes its denominator positive. The approximation is an asymptotic statement, while the inequality is a bound at every nonnegative initial capital.

The inequality can also be seen directly from the exponential surplus martingale $e^{-RU(t)}$. Its expectation factor per unit time is zero in the exponent because $\lambda (M_X(R)-1)-cR=0$. Apply the optional stopping theorem at $\tau \wedge T$, a bounded time. On $\{\tau \le T\}$, $e^{-RU(\tau )}>1$, so $\mathbb{P}(\tau \le T)\le e^{-Ru}$. Increasing $T$ proves the bound without stopping at an unbounded time.

For any nonnegative claim size, the Tonelli theorem applied to $e^{RX}-1={\int }_0^{X}R{e}^{Rx}dx$ gives the exponential tail identityCombining it with the adjustment equation yieldsThe density $f_Y(x)=(1-F_X(x))/\mu$ integrates to one by the tail integral formula for moments. Thus $Y$ has the equilibrium claim-size distribution, and the preceding formula says $M_Y(R)=1+\theta$.

Under the given NBUE condition, the stochastic order comparison is $1-F_Y(x)\le 1-F_X(x)$ at every $x\ge 0$. Apply the same exponential tail identity to both variables to obtainConsequentlyand rearrangement proves the adjustment-coefficient lower bound for NBUE claims:This uses the specified distributional comparison, not an unwarranted assumption that an arbitrary equilibrium claim law is always smaller than its original law.

For the final example, $f_X(x)=x{e}^{-x}$ is the shape-two, rate-one gamma distribution, with $\mu =2$, survival function ${\overline{F}}_X(x)=(1+x)e^{-x}$, and moment-generating function $M_X(r)=(1-r{)}^{-2}$ for $r<1$. With $\theta =1/10$, the positive adjustment root satisfiesDividing out the zero root and simplifying gives $11R^2-17R+1=0$. Only the smaller root is in the finite-transform interval $(0,1)$, soThe equilibrium density and survival function areThus ${\overline{F}}_Y(x)\le (1+x)e^{-x}={\overline{F}}_X(x)$ for every $x\ge 0$, proving that this claim law is new better than used in expectation. Finally the lower bound equals $1/22$. Our exact root is larger because $16>7\sqrt{5}$, equivalently $256>245$. Henceverifying the requested bound for the example.

For a unit-rate exponential distribution, $\mu =1$ and $M_X(r)=1/(1-r)$ for $r<1$. The adjustment coefficient equation isIts nonzero root isIt lies in $(0,1)$ for $\theta >0$, so the moment-generating function is finite there and the Lundberg inequality applies.

The severity is an equal-weight mixture distribution of rate-$2$ and rate-$2/3$ exponential distributions. Its expected value isThe moment-generating function, finite exactly for $r<2/3$, isCanceling the nonzero $r$ in the adjustment coefficient equation and multiplying by the positive denominator on $0<r<2/3$ givesThus the required polynomial isSince $P(0)=4\theta >0$, $P(2/3)=-2<0$, and the leading coefficient is positive, one root lies in $(0,2/3)$ and the other exceeds $2/3$. Only the smaller root is in the moment-generating function domain. ConsequentlyThe rationalized expression avoids subtraction of nearly equal numbers when $\theta$ is small.

The erroneously chosen same-mean exponential distribution gives $R_{\exp }=\theta /(1+\theta )$. Direct substitution shows $P(R_{\exp })=-\theta <0$, so $R_{\exp }$ lies strictly between the two polynomial roots, and in particular $R_{\mathrm{mix}}<R_{\exp }$. Thereforewhile both bounds equal one at $u=0$. The exponential misspecification produces a smaller claimed upper bound. The Lundberg inequality certifies $e^{-R_{\mathrm{mix}}u}$ for the actual mixture; it does not certify the smaller expression computed from the wrong severity law.

Let $C_t$ be the cumulative claim amount and $U_t=u+ct-C_t$ the surplus in the classical risk model. The supplied adjustment coefficient satisfies $\lambda (M_X(R)-1)=cR$. The Compound Poisson process has independent increments, and the random-sum transform identity givesIt follows that $Z_t=\exp (R(C_t-ct))$ is a nonnegative martingale with $Z_0=1$: conditional on the past, the multiplicative increment has expected value one. This is the exponential surplus martingale.

Let $\tau =\inf \{t\ge 0:U_t<0\}$ be the ruin stopping time. Surplus decreases only at claim arrivals, so on $\{\tau \le t\}$ the deficit at ruin gives $C_{\tau }-c\tau >u$ and $Z_{\tau }>e^{Ru}$. The optional stopping theorem at the bounded stopping time $\tau \wedge t$ yieldsAs $t$ increases without bound, the events $\{\tau \le t\}$ increase to eventual ruin. Hence the ultimate ruin probability satisfies the Lundberg inequalityThe proof uses only bounded-time stopping; it does not presume that the martingale can be stopped with equality of expected values at an unbounded ruin time.

In the classical risk model write $U(t)=u+ct-{\sum }_{j=1}^{N(t)}{X}_j$, where the Poisson process $N(t)$ has rate $\lambda$ and is independent of the claim sizes. Define the ruin time and ultimate ultimate ruin probability byThe relative safety loading is $\rho =c/(\lambda \mu )-1>0$, so $c=(1+\rho )\lambda \mu$. The adjustment coefficient is the nonzero positive solutionExistence and uniqueness follow from the secant-slope existence criterion for an adjustment coefficient. Explicitly, $\lambda (M(r)-1)-cr$ has derivative $\lambda \mu -c<0$ at zero and is strictly convex for positive claims. The assumed divergence of $M$ makes it cross zero once at a positive $R<r_{\infty }$. When $r_{\infty }=\infty$, an exponential lower bound from any positive tail event shows that $M(r)/r\to \infty$. In particular $R$ is inside the finite-transform domain, not at its endpoint.

Put $\overline{F}=1-F$. Replacing $\phi =1-\psi$ in the survival renewal equation for a classical risk model yieldsBy the tail integral formula for moments, $\mu ={\int }_0^{\infty }\overline{F}(x)dx$. Therefore this is the defective renewal equationThe original kernel has mass $\lambda \mu /c=1/(1+\rho )<1$. For the exponential tilt of the ruin renewal kernel, setMultiplying by $e^{Ru}$ gives the required proper renewal equationTo verify that this is a probability renewal kernel, Tonelli theorem gives, for $r>0$ in the finite-transform domain,The adjustment coefficient equation consequently implies ${\int }_0^{\infty }{k}_R(x)dx=1$. Its expected value isIt is finite because $R$ is interior to the finite-transform domain and is positive because the strict convex crossing has derivative $\lambda M^{\prime }(R)-c>0$.

We quote the key renewal theorem in the following form: for a nonarithmetic distribution $K$ of positive increments with finite positive mean $m$, and a directly Riemann integrable nonnegative function $h$, the locally bounded solution of $z=h+z\ast K$ satisfies $z(u)\to m^{-1}{\int }_0^{\infty }h$. It has renewal representation $z=h\ast {\sum }_{j\ge 0}{K}^{\ast j}$; this follows by iterating the equation, since the probability that arbitrarily many positive increments have sum at most a fixed $u$ tends to zero.

Here $K_R(dx)=k_R(x)dx$ is absolutely continuous, and hence nonarithmetic distribution, even if the original claim law has atoms. The function $h_R$ is continuous. Choose $\delta >0$ with $M(R+\delta )<\infty$. The Markov inequality gives $\overline{F}(x)\le M(R+\delta )e^{-(R+\delta )x}$, and hence $h_R(u)\le C_{\delta }{e}^{-\delta u}$. Continuity on compact intervals and this exponential bound make the upper Riemann sums finite with uniformly vanishing tails, proving direct Riemann integrability.

A further application of Tonelli theorem evaluates the forcing integral:All hypotheses of the key renewal theorem are now checked, so the interior adjustment coefficient ruin prefactor isThis proves the requested Cramér–Lundberg ruin asymptotic, including its constant.

For the two-component hyperexponential distribution, conditioning on the chosen exponential component givesIts moment-generating function and derivative areThe moment-generating function diverges at $1/2$, while the derivative of the adjustment equation at zero is negative. Strict convexity therefore places its unique positive adjustment coefficient inThe adjustment equation, divided by $R$, becomesUsing this identity to subtract $(1+\rho )\mu$ from $M^{\prime }(R)$ givesThus the asymptotic constant in terms of $\rho$ and $R$ isThe denominator is positive on the identified domain. If desired, $R$ is the smaller root of $6(1+\rho )R^2-(5+9\rho )R+3\rho =0$; the other algebraic root lies outside the positive finite-transform interval and is not an adjustment coefficient.

Consider the secant slopeThe moment-generating function is continuous on the interior of its finite domain and has right derivative $M^{\prime }(0)=\mu$. Thus $H(r)\to \mu$ as $r\downarrow 0$. For every fixed positive claim amount $x$, the function $(e^{rx}-1)/r$ is strictly increasing in $r>0$: its derivative has numerator $e^{rx}(rx-1)+1>0$, since this numerator starts at zero and has derivative $rx{e}^{rx}$ as a function of $rx$. Taking expected values preserves the strict inequality. Therefore $H$ is continuous and strictly increasing. Equivalently, the strictly convex transform $M$ has strictly increasing secant slopes from the origin.

If $r_{\infty }<\infty$, the assumed blow-up of $M$ gives $H(r)\to \infty$. If $r_{\infty }=\infty$, choose $a>0$ with $d=\mathbb{P}(X_1\ge a)>0$. Such an $a$ exists because the claims are positive. Then $M(r)\ge d{e}^{ar}$, so again $H(r)\to \infty$. This exponential lower bound is needed at an infinite endpoint: mere divergence of $M$ would not, by itself, establish divergence of $M(r)/r$.

The target $(1+\theta )\mu$ strictly exceeds the limiting slope $\mu$. The intermediate value theorem and strict monotonicity therefore giveMultiplying by $R$ gives the defining adjustment coefficient equation. The zero root of the undivided equation is excluded. This is the secant-slope existence criterion for an adjustment coefficient.

Use $c_{\mathrm{prem}}$ for the premium income rate, reserving $c$ later for the smaller exponential decay rate. In the classical risk model, the surplus isHere $\rho$ is the relative safety loading. The aggregate claims form a Compound Poisson process. Define $L_t={\sum }_{j=1}^{N_t}{X}_j-c_{\mathrm{prem}}t$, so ruin occurs when $L_t>u$. By independent increments and the exponential formula for a marked Poisson sum,Thus $Z_t=e^{R{L}_t}$ is a nonnegative continuous-time martingale with $Z_0=1$, because the adjustment coefficient makes the exponent vanish.

Let $\tau =\inf \{t:U_t<0\}$. Apply the optional stopping theorem at the bounded stopping time $\tau \wedge T$. On $\{\tau \le T\}$, $L_{\tau }>u$, soLetting $T$ increase proves the Lundberg inequality and the unscaled limit:

For the precise asymptotic, putThe given exponential integral identity makes $k$ a probability density. Multiplying the given defective renewal equation by $e^{Ru}$ turns it into the ordinary renewal equationFor clarity, the version of the key renewal theorem used here is: if the interarrival law is nonarithmetic, has mean $m_k\in (0,\infty )$, and $g$ is directly Riemann integrable, the locally bounded solution of this renewal equation satisfies $z(u)\to m_k^{-1}{\int }_0^{\infty }g(v)dv$. The infinite-mean version gives zero for nonnegative directly Riemann integrable $g$.

All the hypotheses can be checked here. The density $k$ gives a nonarithmetic distribution. The Tonelli theorem givesFurthermoreThus $g$ is continuous and integrable, and ${\int }_0^{\infty }|g^{\prime }(u)|du\le R\int g+1<\infty$. On a mesh of width $\delta$, the difference between its upper and lower sums is at most $\delta \int |g^{\prime }|$; its upper sum is at most $\int g+\delta \int |g^{\prime }|$. This proves direct Riemann integrability rather than assuming it. Also $0\le z(u)\le 1$ by the Lundberg inequality, so the solution is locally bounded. Its renewal representation is $z=g\ast U_k$, where $U_k={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{K}^{\ast j}$ and $K(dx)=k(x)dx$; the residual after iteration tends to zero on compact intervals because sums of positive interarrivals tend to infinity.

Writing $J={\int }_0^{\infty }x{e}^{Rx}{f}_I(x)dx$, the tilted interarrival expected value is $m_k=hJ$. The key renewal theorem gives the Cramér–Lundberg ruin asymptoticIf $J=\infty$, the same formula is interpreted as $A=0$. A positive finite asymptotic constant requires $J<\infty$; this extra integrability is not explicitly stated in the paper.

For the final two-exponential case, evaluate the defective renewal equation at zero:One can identify the adjustment coefficient without silently assuming $A>0$. For $0<r<c$, setIt is finite and positive. Integrating the nonnegative terms of the defective renewal equation, using the Tonelli theorem, first shows that $F_I(r)={\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{rx}{f}_I(x)dx$ is finite and then givesAs $r\uparrow c$, $P(r)\to \infty$ because $a>0$. By monotone convergence theorem, $h{F}_I(c)=1$. The integrated tail distribution in the classical risk model has density $f_I(x)=\mathbb{P}(X_1>x)/\mu$, so $F_I(r)=[M(r)-1]/(\mu r)$ by the tail integral formula for moments. Hence $c$ solves the adjustment equation, and its stipulated uniqueness implies $R=c$. Finally the displayed form of $\psi$ gives the remaining constantsIn particular the decay exponent $d$ and the coefficient $b$ do not affect $R$ or $A$. The $c$ in these final answers is the printed decay rate, not $c_{\mathrm{prem}}$.

For positive claims with a finite positive moment-generating function neighbourhood, use $e^u>1+u+u^2/2$ and $e^u>1+u+u^2/2+u^3/6$ for $u>0$ in the defining adjustment coefficient equation. They imply the displayed strict upper bounds, where $r_2$ is the positive quadratic root. Its defining polynomial is negative at zero and positive at $r_1$, proving $r_2<r_1$. Higher exponential-series truncations similarly yield upper bounds from more raw moments.

For rate-$\alpha$ exponential distribution claims and $c>\lambda /\alpha$, the ruin integro-differential equation reduces to ${\psi }^{\prime \prime }+(\alpha -\lambda /c){\psi }^{\prime }=0$. Differentiate the convolution and use its equation $A^{\prime }=\alpha \psi -\alpha A$ to eliminate it. Positive relative safety loading implies $\psi (u)\to 0$ as $u\to \infty$, and the zero-capital survival probability gives $\psi (0)=\lambda /(\alpha c)$. These two conditions determine the displayed solution. The adjustment coefficient is $\alpha -\lambda /c$.