MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512566449 · doi:10.1080/03461238.2016.1225265

Analysis of IBNR claims in renewal insurance models

2016· article· en· W2512566449 on OpenAlexafffund
David Landriault, Gordon E. Willmot, Di Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Actuarial Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsSociety of Actuaries
KeywordsRenewal theoryActuarial scienceCompound Poisson processPoisson distributionPoisson processEconometricsEconomicsMathematicsBusinessStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incurred but not reported (IBNR) claims, which arise naturally in insurance contexts, are of central importance to insurers for risk management and financial reporting purposes. In this paper, we first examine the moments of the total discounted IBNR claim amount at a given time when claim events occur according to a compound renewal process. Under the same claim arrival dynamic, we later consider the joint moments of the total discounted IBNR claim amount and the total incurred and reported claim amount at possibly different time points, a quantity of much interest for claim reserving purposes. In the second part of this article, we examine in more detail properties of the IBNR claim number under specific distributional assumptions for the reporting lags and the interarrival times. Among others, the self-decomposability of the IBNR claim number process is considered when claim events occur according to a compound Poisson process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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