FUNCTIONAL PROFILE TECHNIQUES FOR CLAIMS RESERVING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the most fundamental tasks in non-life insurance, done on regular basis, is risk reserving assessment analysis, which amounts to predict stochastically the overall loss reserves to cover possible claims. The most common reserving methods are based on different parametric approaches using aggregated data structured in the run-off triangles. In this paper, we propose a rather non-parametric approach, which handles the underlying loss development triangles as functional profiles and predicts the claim reserve distribution through permutation bootstrap. Three competitive functional-based reserving techniques, each with slightly different scope, are presented; their theoretical and practical advantages – in particular, effortless implementation, robustness against outliers, and wide-range applicability – are discussed. Theoretical justifications of the methods are derived as well. An evaluation of the empirical performance of the designed methods and a full-scale comparison with standard (parametric) reserving techniques are carried on several hundreds of real run-off triangles against the known real loss outcomes. An important objective of the paper is also to promote the idea of natural usefulness of the functional reserving methods among the reserving practitioners.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".