MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588246711 · doi:10.1080/10920277.2016.1246254

Joint Insolvency Analysis of a Shared MAP Risk Process: A Capital Allocation Application

2017· article· en· W2588246711 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Cai, David Landriault, Tianxiang Shi, Wei Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital allocation lineUnivariateInsolvencyContext (archaeology)Ruin theoryCapital (architecture)Joint (building)Bivariate analysisActuarial scienceTime horizonJoint probability distributionComputer scienceEconomicsMultivariate statisticsRisk modelMicroeconomicsFinanceProfit (economics)MathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, multivariate insurance risk processes have received increasing attention in risk theory. First-passage-time problems in the context of these insurance risk processes are of primary interest for risk management purposes. In this article we study joint-ruin problems of two risk undertakers in a proportionally shared Markovian claim arrival process. Building on the existing work in the literature, joint-ruin–related quantities are thoroughly analyzed by capitalizing on existing results in certain univariate insurance surplus processes. Finally, an application is considered where the finite-time and infinite-time joint-ruin probabilities are used as risk measures to allocate risk capital among different business lines. The proposed joint-ruin allocation principle enables us to not only capture the risk dynamics over a given time horizon, but also overcome the “cross-subsidizing” effect of many existing allocation principles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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