MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969112517 · doi:10.1080/03461238.2012.762548

Recursions and fast Fourier transforms for a new bivariate aggregate claims model

2013· article· en· W1969112517 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Jin, Jiandong Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Actuarial Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBivariate analysisAggregate (composite)Joint probability distributionMultivariate statisticsFourier transformExponential functionComputationJoint (building)EconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsApplied mathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insurance companies typically face multiple sources (types) of claims. Therefore, modelling dependencies among different types of risks is extremely important for evaluating the aggregate claims of an insurer. In this paper, we first introduce a multivariate aggregate claims model, which allows dependencies among claim numbers as well as dependencies among claim sizes. For this proposed model, we derive recursive formulas for the joint probability functions of different types of claims. In addition, we extend the concept of exponential tilting to the multivariate fast Fourier transform and use it to compute the joint probability functions of the various types of claims. We provide numerical examples to compare the accuracy and efficiency of the two computation methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Actuarial JournalSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207