Risk Aggregation: A General Approach via the Class of Generalized Gamma Convolutions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk aggregation is virtually everywhere in insurance applications. Indeed, in the vast majority of situations, insurers are interested in the properties of the sums of the risks they are exposed to, rather than in the stand-alone risks per se. Unfortunately, the problem of formulating the probability distributions of the aforementioned sums is rather involved, and as a rule does not have an explicit solution. As a result, numerous methods to approximate the distributions of the sums have been proposed, with the moment-matching approximations (MMAs) being arguably the most popular. The arsenal of existing MMAs is quite impressive and contains such very simple methods as the normal and shifted-gamma approximations that, respectively, match the first two and three moments only, as well as such much more intricate methods as the one based on the mixed Erlang distributions (Cossette et al. 2016). Note, however, that in practice the sums of insurance risks can have numerous and just a few summands; in the latter case the normal approximation is very questionable. Also, in practice the distributions of the stand-alone risks can be light-tailed or heavy-tailed; in the latter case moments of higher orders (e.g., ≥2) may not exist, and so the approximation based on mixed Erlang distributions is of limited usefulness. In this paper we put forward a refined MMA method for approximating the distributions of the sums of insurance risks. Our method approximates the distributions of interest to any desired precision, works equally well for light- and heavy-tailed distributions, and is reasonably fast irrespective of the number of the involved summands. Address for Correspondence: efurman@mathstat.yorku.ca
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it