Actuarial-consistency and two-step actuarial valuations: a new paradigm to insurance valuation
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
This paper introduces new valuation schemes called actuarial-consistent valuations for insurance liabilities which depend on both financial and actuarial risks, which imposes that all actuarial risks are priced via standard actuarial principles. We propose to extend standard actuarial principles by a new actuarial-consistent procedure, which we call ‘two-step actuarial valuations’. In the case valuations are coherent, we show that actuarial-consistent valuations are equivalent to two-step actuarial valuations. We also discuss the connection with ‘two-step market-consistent valuations’ from Pelsser, A. & Stadje, M. [(2014). Time-consistent and market-consistent evaluations. Mathematical Finance 24(1), 25–65]. In particular, we discuss how the dependence structure between actuarial and financial risks impacts both actuarial-consistent and market-consistent valuations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it