MODELING DEPENDENCE BETWEEN LOSS TRIANGLES WITH HIERARCHICAL ARCHIMEDEAN COPULAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the most critical problems in property/casualty insurance is to determine an appropriate reserve for incurred but unpaid losses. These provisions generally comprise most of the liabilities of a non-life insurance company. The global provisions are often determined under an assumption of independence between the lines of business. Recently, Shi and Frees (2011) proposed to put dependence between lines of business with a copula that captures dependence between two cells of two different runoff triangles. In this paper, we propose to generalize this model in two steps. First, by using an idea proposed by Barnett and Zehnwirth (1998), we will suppose a dependence between all the observations that belong to the same calendar year (CY) for each line of business. Thereafter, we will then suppose another dependence structure that links the CYs of different lines of business. This model is done by using hierarchical Archimedean copulas. We show that the model provides more flexibility than existing models, and offers a better, more realistic and more intuitive interpretation of the dependence between the lines of business. For illustration, the model is applied to a dataset from a major US property-casualty insurer, where a bootstrap method is proposed to estimate the distribution of the reserve.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".