Reinsurance games with variance-premium reinsurers: from tree to chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper studies dynamic reinsurance contracting and competition problems under model ambiguity in a reinsurance market with one primary insurer and n reinsurers, who apply the variance premium principle and who are distinguished by their levels of ambiguity aversion. The insurer negotiates reinsurance policies with all reinsurers simultaneously, which leads to a reinsurance tree structure with full competition among the reinsurers. We model the reinsurance contracting problems between the insurer and reinsurers by Stackelberg differential games and the competition among the reinsurers by a non-cooperative Nash game. We derive equilibrium strategies in semi-closed form for all the companies, whose objective is to maximize their expected surpluses penalized by a squared-error divergence term that measures their ambiguity. We find that, in equilibrium, the insurer purchases a positive amount of proportional reinsurance from each reinsurer. We further show that the insurer always prefers the tree structure to the chain structure, in which the risk of the insurer is shared sequentially among all reinsurers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".