MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256399455 · doi:10.1017/s0021900200011335

Optimal Dynamic Risk Control for Insurers with State-Dependent Income

2014· article· en· W4256399455 on OpenAlexafffund
Ming Zhou, Jun Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsReinsuranceMathematicsStochastic controlJump diffusionPortfolioHamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equationMarkov processMathematical economicsJump processBellman equationMathematical optimizationOptimal controlActuarial scienceEconomicsJumpStatisticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate optimal forms of dynamic reinsurance polices among a class of general reinsurance strategies. The original surplus process of an insurance portfolio is assumed to follow a Markov jump process with state-dependent income. We assume that the insurer uses a dynamic reinsurance policy to minimize the probability of absolute ruin, where the traditional ruin can be viewed as a special case of absolute ruin. In terms of approximation theory of stochastic process, the controlled diffusion model with a general reinsurance policy is established strictly. In such a risk model, absolute ruin is said to occur when the drift coefficient of the surplus process turns negative, when the insurer has no profitability any more. Under the expected value premium principle, we rigorously prove that a dynamic excess-of-loss reinsurance is the optimal form of reinsurance among a class of general reinsurance strategies in a dynamic control framework. Moreover, by solving the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation, we derive both the explicit expression of the optimal dynamic excess-of-loss reinsurance strategy and the closed-form solution to the absolute ruin probability under the optimal reinsurance strategy. We also illustrate these explicit solutions using numerical examples.

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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207