SPATIAL DEPENDENCE AND AGGREGATION IN WEATHER RISK HEDGING: A LÉVY SUBORDINATED HIERARCHICAL ARCHIMEDEAN COPULAS (LSHAC) APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adverse weather-related risk is a main source of crop production loss and a big concern for agricultural insurers and reinsurers. In response, weather risk hedging may be valuable, however, due to basis risk it has been largely unsuccessful to date. This research proposes the Lévy subordinated hierarchical Archimedean copula model in modelling the spatial dependence of weather risk to reduce basis risk. The analysis shows that the Lévy subordinated hierarchical Archimedean copula model can improve the hedging performance through more accurate modelling of the dependence structure of weather risks and is more efficient in hedging extreme downside weather risk, compared to the benchmark copula models. Further, the results reveal that more effective hedging may be achieved as the spatial aggregation level increases. This research demonstrates that hedging weather risk is an important risk management method, and the approach outlined in this paper may be useful to insurers and reinsurers in the case of agriculture, as well as for other related risks in the property and casualty sector.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".