MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319296784 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16020095

Modeling the Optimal Combination of Proportional and Stop-Loss Reinsurance with Dependent Claim and Stochastic Insurance Premium

2023· article· en· W4319296784 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suci Fratama Sari, Arief Rachman Hakim, Ikha Magdalena, Khreshna Syuhada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Teknologi BandungUniversitas Indonesia
KeywordsReinsuranceCopula (linguistics)Gumbel distributionBivariate analysisActuarial scienceExponential functionExponential distributionEconometricsEconomicsMathematicsExtreme value theoryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates an optimal reinsurance policy using a risk model with dependent claim and insurance premium by assuming that the insurance premium is random. Their dependence structure is modeled using Sarmanov’s bivariate exponential distribution and the Farlie–Gumbel–Morgenstern (FGM) copula-based bivariate exponential distribution. The reinsurance premium paid by the insurer to the reinsurer is fixed and is charged by the expected value premium principle (EVPP) and standard deviation premium principle (SDPP). The main objective of this paper is to determine the proportion and retention limit of the optimal combination of proportional and stop-loss reinsurance for the insurer. Specifically, with a constrained reinsurance premium, we use the minimization of the Value-at-Risk (VaR) of the insurer’s net cost. When determining the optimal proportion and retention limit, we provide some numerical examples to illustrate the theoretical results. We show that the dependence parameter, the probability of claim occurrence, and the confidence level have effects on the optimal VaR of the insurer’s net cost.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207