A marginal indemnity function approach to optimal reinsurance under the Vajda condition
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
To manage the risk of insurance companies, a reinsurance transaction is among the myriad risk management mechanisms the top ranked choice. In this paper, we study the design of optimal reinsurance contracts within a risk measure minimization framework and subject to the Vajda condition. The Vajda condition requires the reinsurer to take an increasing proportion of the loss when it increases and therefore imposes constraints on the indemnity function. The distortion-risk-measure-based objective function is very generic, and allows for, for example, an objective to minimize the risk-adjusted value of the insurer’s liability, and for heterogeneous beliefs regarding the loss distribution by the insurer and reinsurer. Under a mild condition, we propose a backward-forward optimization method that is based on a marginal indemnity function formulation. To show the applicability and simplicity of our strategy, we provide three concrete examples with the Value-at-Risk: one with the risk-adjusted value of the insurer’s liability, one with an objective function that follows from imposing Pareto optimality, and one with heterogeneous beliefs. We conclude this paper with an empirical application with Danish fire insurance losses and the Value-at-Risk and the Tail Value-at-Risk.
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 | 0.035 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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