MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412185645 · doi:10.1017/asb.2025.10056

Marked Cox models for IBNR claims count: continuous and discretized approaches with Dirichlet-driven reporting delays

2025· article· en· W4412185645 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Abdelrahman, Andrei L. Badescu, Radu V. Craiu, Xiaodong Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCount dataDirichlet distributionMathematicsDiscretizationEconometricsStatisticsApplied mathematicsPoisson distributionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a novel micro-level Cox model for incurred but not reported (IBNR) claims count based on hidden Markov models. Initially formulated as a continuous-time model, it addresses the complexity of incorporating temporal dependencies and policyholder risk attributes. However, the continuous-time model faces significant challenges in maximizing the likelihood and fitting right-truncated reporting delays. To overcome these issues, we introduce two discrete-time versions: one incorporating unsystematic randomness in reporting delays through a Dirichlet distribution and one without. We provide the EM algorithm for parameter estimation for all three models and apply them to an auto-insurance dataset to estimate IBNR claim counts. Our results show that while all models perform well, the discrete-time versions demonstrate superior performance by jointly modeling delay and frequency, with the Dirichlet-based model capturing additional variability in reporting delays. This approach enhances the accuracy and reliability of IBNR reserving, offering a flexible framework adaptable to different levels of granularity within an insurance portfolio.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207