MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123741628 · doi:10.1017/asb.2017.4

COLLECTIVE RISK MODELS WITH DEPENDENCE UNCERTAINTY

2017· article· en· W3123741628 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

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
KeywordsEconometricsPortfolioExpected shortfallEquivalence (formal languages)Aggregate (composite)Value at riskEconomicsRisk modelRandom variableCopula (linguistics)MathematicsStatistical physicsActuarial scienceStatisticsRisk managementPhysicsFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We bring the recently developed framework of dependence uncertainty into collective risk models, one of the most classic models in actuarial science. We study the worst-case values of the Value-at-Risk (VaR) and the Expected Shortfall (ES) of the aggregate loss in collective risk models, under two settings of dependence uncertainty: (i) the counting random variable (claim frequency) and the individual losses (claim sizes) are independent, and the dependence of the individual losses is unknown; (ii) the dependence of the counting random variable and the individual losses is unknown. Analytical results for the worst-case values of ES are obtained. For the loss from a large portfolio of insurance policies, an asymptotic equivalence of VaR and ES is established. Our results can be used to provide approximations for VaR and ES in collective risk models with unknown dependence. Approximation errors are obtained in both cases.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.231 · 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