MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363650065 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2023.04.005

Reinsurance games with two reinsurers: Tree versus chain

2023· article· en· W4363650065 on OpenAlex
Jingyi Cao, Dongchen Li, Virginia R. Young, Bin Zou

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Operational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsReinsuranceStackelberg competitionMathematical economicsTree (set theory)Nash equilibriumVariance (accounting)Game theoryComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsMathematicsActuarial scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies reinsurance contracting and competition in a continuous-time model with ambiguity. The market consists of one insurer and two reinsurers, who apply a generalized expected-value premium principle and a generalized variance premium principle to price reinsurance contracts, respectively. The reinsurance contracting problems between the insurer and reinsurers are resolved by Stackelberg differential games, and the reinsurance competition between two reinsurers is settled by a non-cooperative Nash game. We obtain the closed-form equilibrium strategies for all three players under both a tree structure and a chain structure. A detailed comparison study reveals that the tree structure is preferred to the chain structure from a social planner’s perspective, and the tree structure is generally preferred from the insurer’s perspective.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.166 · 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