OPTIMAL REINSURANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF BOTH AN INSURER AND A REINSURER
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Optimal reinsurance from an insurer's point of view or from a reinsurer's point of view has been studied extensively in the literature. However, as two parties of a reinsurance contract, an insurer and a reinsurer have conflicting interests. An optimal form of reinsurance from one party's point of view may be not acceptable to the other party. In this paper, we study optimal reinsurance designs from the perspectives of both an insurer and a reinsurer and take into account both an insurer's aims and a reinsurer's goals in reinsurance contract designs. We develop optimal reinsurance contracts that minimize the convex combination of the Value-at-Risk (VaR) risk measures of the insurer's loss and the reinsurer's loss under two types of constraints, respectively. The constraints describe the interests of both the insurer and the reinsurer. With the first type of constraints, the insurer and the reinsurer each have their limit on the VaR of their own loss. With the second type of constraints, the insurer has a limit on the VaR of his loss while the reinsurer has a target on his profit from selling a reinsurance contract. For both types of constraints, we derive the optimal reinsurance forms in a wide class of reinsurance policies and under the expected value reinsurance premium principle. These optimal reinsurance forms are more complicated than the optimal reinsurance contracts from the perspective of one party only. The proposed models can also be reduced to the problems of minimizing the VaR of one party's loss under the constraints on the interests of both the insurer and the reinsurer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it