MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094363278 · doi:10.3390/risks8040111

Application of a Vine Copula for Multi-Line Insurance Reserving

2020· article· en· W3094363278 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser UniversitySociety of Actuaries
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)Vine copulaJoint probability distributionPortfolioEconometricsMarginal distributionComputer scienceLine of businessActuarial scienceEconomicsMathematicsStatisticsBusiness modelFinanceRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces a novel use of the vine copula which captures dependence among multi-line claim triangles, especially when an insurance portfolio consists of more than two lines of business. First, we suggest a way to choose an optimal joint loss development model for multiple lines of business that considers marginal distribution, vine copula structure, and choice of family for each pair of copulas. The performance of the model is also demonstrated with Bayesian model diagnostics and out-of-sample validation measures. Finally, we provide an implication of the dependence modeling, which allows a company to analyze and establish the risk capital for whole portfolio.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.556
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.056 · 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