Measuring Discrete Risks on Infinite Domains: Theoretical Foundations, Conditional Five Number Summaries, and Data Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To accommodate numerous practical scenarios, in this article we extend statistical inference for smoothed quantile estimators from finite domains to infinite domains. We accomplish the task with the help of a newly designed truncation methodology for discrete loss distributions with infinite domains. A simulation study illustrates the methodology in the case of several distributions, such as Poisson, negative binomial, and their zero-inflated versions, which are commonly used in the insurance industry to model claim frequencies. Additionally, we propose a very flexible bootstrap-based approach for use in practice. Using automobile accident data and their modifications, we compute what we have termed the conditional five number summary (C5NS) for the tail risk and construct confidence intervals for each of the five quantiles making up C5NS and then calculate the tail probabilities. The results show that the smoothed quantile approach classifies the tail riskiness of portfolios not only more accurately but also produces lower coefficients of variation in the estimation of tail probabilities than those obtained using the linear interpolation approach.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".