Matched via arXiv identifier search · Partial overlap with paper title keywords
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Apr 23, 2025 (421d ago)
Risk flags
- No push in 12+ months
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
Stella C. Dong
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
We develop a reinforcement learning (RL) framework for insurance loss reserving that formulates reserve setting as a finite-horizon sequential decision problem under claim development uncertainty, macroeconomic stress, and solvency governance. The reserving process is modeled as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) in which reserve adjustments influence future reserve adequacy, capital efficiency, and solvency outcomes. A ...
Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) agent is trained using a risk-sensitive reward that penalizes reserve shortfall, capital inefficiency, and breaches of a volatility-adjusted solvency floor, with tail risk explicitly controlled through Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR). To reflect regulatory stress-testing practice, the agent is trained under a regime-aware curriculum and evaluated using both regime-stratified simulations and fixed-shock stress scenarios. Empirical results for Workers Compensation and Other Liability illustrate how the proposed RL-CVaR policy improves tail-risk control and reduces solvency violations relative to classical actuarial reserving methods, while maintaining comparable capital efficiency. We further discuss calibration and governance considerations required to align model parameters with firm-specific risk appetite and supervisory expectations under Solvency II and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) frameworks.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
We develop a reinforcement learning (RL) framework for insurance loss reserving that formulates reserve setting as a finite-horizon sequential decision problem under claim development uncertainty, macroeconomic stress, and solvency governance.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Partial overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Agentic tool use, Scientific computing
Methods
Reinforcement learning
Domains
AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.