Optimal Reinsurance under VaR and CVaR Risk Measures: A Simplified Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study two classes of optimal reinsurance models by minimizing the total risk exposure of an insurer under the criteria of value at risk (VaR) and conditional value at risk (CVaR). We assume that the reinsurance premium is calculated according to the expected value principle. Explicit solutions for the optimal reinsurance policies are derived over ceded loss functions with increasing degrees of generality. More precisely, we establish formally that under the VaR minimization model, (i) the stop-loss reinsurance is optimal among the class of increasing convex ceded loss functions; (ii) when the constraints on both ceded and retained loss functions are relaxed to increasing functions, the stop-loss reinsurance with an upper limit is shown to be optimal; (iii) and finally under the set of general increasing and left-continuous retained loss functions, the truncated stop-loss reinsurance is shown to be optimal. In contrast, under CVaR risk measure, the stop-loss reinsurance is shown to be always optimal. These results suggest that the VaR-based reinsurance models are sensitive with respect to the constraints imposed on both ceded and retained loss functions while the corresponding CVaR-based reinsurance models are quite robust.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".