Optimal Reciprocal Reinsurance Treaties Under the Joint Survival Probability and the Joint Profitable Probability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A reinsurance treaty involves two parties, an insurer and a reinsurer. The two parties have conflicting interests. Most existing optimal reinsurance treaties only consider the interest of one party. In this article, we consider the interests of both insurers and reinsurers and study the joint survival and profitable probabilities of insurers and reinsurers. We design the optimal reinsurance contracts that maximize the joint survival probability and the joint profitable probability. We first establish sufficient and necessary conditions for the existence of the optimal reinsurance retentions for the quota‐share reinsurance and the stop‐loss reinsurance under expected value reinsurance premium principle. We then derive sufficient conditions for the existence of the optimal reinsurance treaties in a wide class of reinsurance policies and under a general reinsurance premium principle. These conditions enable one to design optimal reinsurance contracts in different forms and under different premium principles. As applications, we design an optimal reinsurance contract in the form of a quota‐share reinsurance under the variance principle and an optimal reinsurance treaty in the form of a limited stop‐loss reinsurance under the expected value principle.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".