Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Infinitely Stochastic Micro Forecasting

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Poisson process whose marks are Poisson processes can forecast future claim payments claim-by-claim, including payments from claims not yet reported.

desk verdict Novel marked-Poisson-process framework for granular reserving, but the IBNR back-prediction is invalid as written because Equation (1) misapplies the displacement theorem; the primary payment forecast is likely salvageable. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10636 v2 pith:63RDRBPR submitted 2019-08-28 econ.EM stat.AP

Matúš Maciak , Ostap Okhrin , Michal Pešta This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EMstat.AP MSC 60G5562M0562F1262P05
keywords infinitelystochasticprocessmarkedPoissonnon-homogeneousclaimsreservingincurredbutnotreportedmaximumlikelihoodinferenceMonteCarlopredictionreportingdelay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a single stochastic model for micro-level forecasting of future payments, such as insurance claims: reporting times form a non-homogeneous Poisson process, and each reported claim carries its own non-homogeneous Poisson process of payment times, with payment amounts drawn from time-varying conditional distributions. The authors call this an infinitely stochastic process and argue it is rich enough to cover already reported claims, incurred-but-not-reported claims, and events that have not yet happened in one Monte Carlo framework. They develop maximum-likelihood inference for the intensities, prove consistency and asymptotic normality under explicit assumptions, and show on Czech motor-insurance data that the claim-by-claim predictive distribution is more accurate and less volatile than a traditional aggregated chain-ladder forecast. If the method holds up, it would give insurers and other institutions a way to turn granular event histories into full predictive distributions of future costs rather than point estimates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the infinitely stochastic process: a marked non-homogeneous Poisson process in which each mark is itself a non-homogeneous Poisson process, so that event arrivals sit on two stochastic levels. The machinery that carries the argument is maximum likelihood on the arrival times of both levels, with consistency and asymptotic normality obtained through convex-process asymptotics, plus the displacement theorem, which converts the reporting-time intensity and the reporting-delay density into an accident-time intensity $\mu(t)=\int \psi(z)\,f_W(t\,|\,z)\,dz$ used to back-predict unreported claims. Simulation of the predictive payment distribution is carried out by the thinning algorithm for non-homogeneous Poisson processes.

What would settle it

Estimate the accident-date intensity two ways—using the displacement kernel $f_W(t\,|\,z)$ as written and using $f_W(z-t\,|\,z)$ for the reporting delay $W=Z-T$—then apply Procedure 2 to back-predict accident-date counts for a year already in the database. Whichever kernel reproduces the observed counts of accidents that were eventually reported settles whether the displacement step in Equation (1) is correctly specified; the primary future-payment forecast does not depend on this check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a marked non-homogeneous Poisson process with non-homogeneous Poisson processes as marks—an infinitely stochastic process—is a valid and practically workable model for the whole chain of micro-level claim events. Reporting dates are driven by a non-homogeneous Poisson process with parametric intensity; each reporting date is the location of a mark consisting of another non-homogeneous Poisson process whose arrivals are payment dates; payment amounts and reporting delays are modeled by parametric conditional densities that change over time. Maximum-likelihood estimators for the intensity parameters are shown to be consistent and asymptotically normal, and a thinning-based Monte Carlo procedure turns the fitted model into a simulated predictive distribution for the total future payments. In the empirical study, this granular predictive distribution outperforms the bootstrap chain-ladder benchmark in point accuracy and variability for both bodily-injury and material-damage lines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that accident times $T_i=Z_i-W_i$ form a non-homogeneous Poisson process with intensity $\mu(t)=\int \psi(z)\,f_W(t\,|\,z)\,dz$ via the displacement theorem; as written, the delay-density argument appears to point at the wrong time difference, and if that displacement identity fails, the back-prediction of unreported accident dates breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, insurers can replace a single reserve estimate with a full simulated distribution of future payments over any horizon, including the tails used for solvency capital.
  • The same procedure explicitly produces a predicted stream of incurred-but-not-reported claims and their accident dates, which aggregated reserving methods cannot do.
  • Because the model is built from granular claim-level data, it preserves dependencies among accident dates, reporting delays, payment timing, and payment amounts that are lost when data are collapsed into run-off triangles.
  • The theoretical inference for marked Poisson processes with Poisson-process marks extends beyond insurance to any setting with layered event arrivals, such as startup financing rounds, epidemic case counts, or advertisement-driven sales.
  • The empirical comparison implies that, on their two portfolios, a claim-by-claim approach can be both more accurate and less volatile than the standard aggregated benchmark.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the two-level nesting can be iterated: because a mark is itself a marked process, the same likelihood construction could model sub-events of sub-events, such as payments within an epidemic cluster within a country.
  • Beyond the paper, since the Cox process is a special case, the likelihood-based asymptotics developed here offer a fresh estimation route for doubly stochastic Poisson processes whose intensities vary in time.
  • Beyond the paper, the independence assumption on payment amounts could be relaxed by making the payment intensity depend on past payment amounts, turning each mark into a self-exciting process while keeping the two-level likelihood.
  • Beyond the paper, a direct testable extension is to benchmark the method on portfolios with very different reporting-delay patterns; the expected advantage over aggregation should be largest where reporting delays are long and variable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a granular ('micro') framework for claims reserving and, more generally, for forecasting the cash-flow consequences of recorded events. Reporting dates are modeled as a non-homogeneous Poisson process with parametric intensity; reporting delays and payment amounts are given time-varying parametric conditional distributions; and, for each claim, the payment dates are modeled as a non-homogeneous Poisson process mark. The authors derive consistency and asymptotic normality for the maximum likelihood estimators under convexity and regularity assumptions, simulate a predictive distribution for total future payments, and also back-predict the accident dates of incurred-but-not-reported claims. The empirical section uses Czech motor insurance data for bodily injury and material damage claims, with all of 2016 held out for validation, and compares the granular approach with a bootstrap-aggregated chain-ladder benchmark. The stated central claim is that the proposed tool provides valid stochastic micro-level prediction, including IBNR occurrence modeling, and outperforms aggregated reserving methods.

Significance. The paper has several genuine strengths: the 2016 data are not used for estimation, the theoretical results are proved rather than merely assumed, and treating a whole payment process as a mark is a natural way to avoid finite-dimensional mark restrictions. If fully supported, the framework would be a useful addition to the micro-reserving literature. However, the displacement-theorem formula used for the accident-date intensity, Equation (1), is incorrect as written, and this invalidates the secondary (IBNR back-prediction) component of the paper, including Figure 8. The primary one-year-ahead cash-flow forecast in Procedure 1 does not use that formula, which limits the scope of the damage but does not remove the need for correction and re-estimation.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (1); Procedure 2; Fig. 8] Equation (1) is stated as µ(t;ρ,ϑ)=∫_R ψ(z;ρ) f_W{t; w(z,ϑ)}dz, but the reporting delay is defined by W_i=Z_i−T_i, so the displacement theorem requires the density of W evaluated at w=z−t. The correct accident-time intensity is µ(t)=∫_{z≥t} ψ(z;ρ) f_W(z−t; w(z,ϑ))dz. As printed, Equation (1) evaluates the delay density at t and integrates over all z, which assigns positive intensity to impossible configurations such as z<t with positive delay density. The same wrong expression is repeated verbatim in Procedure 2 and is the basis for the back-predicted accident counts in Figure 8. This is a load-bearing error for the advertised IBNR-occurrence component of the model, not a typographical slip; please correct the formula, redo the back-prediction, and revisit the related statements in Sections 3.1, 4.2.2, and 5. The primary payment forecast in Procedure 1 does not use µ, so that part need not be redone for this reason alone.
  2. [3.1, Examples 3–4; 3.2, Example 7] The empirical analysis relies on the intensity functions of Examples 3, 4, and 7, but the paper only asserts that 'the above formulated assumptions are satisfied' for these functions and does not verify the crucial convexity Assumptions M2 and N2, let alone the associated regularity conditions. Because the intensities contain trigonometric terms with estimated frequencies (ρ5, ρ6, η3), convexity of h and g_i over the full open convex parameter sets is not obvious and may fail without additional restrictions. Since Theorems 1 and 4 and Corollaries 2 and 5 are the formal support for the plug-in prediction used in Section 4, the relevant assumptions need to be verified for the actual intensity functions, or the parameter sets need to be restricted so that the assumptions demonstrably hold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.3] The sentence 'Taking into account the dependency between the accident date Zi and the reporting delay Wi' should refer to the reporting date Z_i, not the accident date, since the delay distribution is specified conditional on Z_i.
  2. [2.2] The claim that this is 'the first time where all the possible cross and temporal dependencies of the claim data are taken into account' is stronger than the evidence provided; please document the comparison with existing micro-reserving models or soften the claim.
  3. [3.3, Eqs. (9)–(10)] If the frequency parameters ξ_{c,ℓ} and ξ_{d,ℓ} are estimated rather than fixed at integer multiples of the base frequency, the seasonal terms are not a truncated Fourier series in the usual sense, and the identifiability of these parameters should be discussed.
  4. [4.2] The number of Monte Carlo runs S used for the predictive distributions in Figures 7 and 8 is not reported; please state it explicitly.
  5. [Section 4.2.1, Fig. 7] The statement that the granular method 'strongly outperforms' the aggregated method rests on a single holdout year with no uncertainty measure for the comparison; please temper the wording or provide additional validation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictive quantities are Monte Carlo simulations from parameters fitted to data up to 2015, with 2016 held out for validation only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its empirical targets. Parameters for the reporting intensity, payment intensities, reporting-delay density, and payment-amount density are all estimated by maximum likelihood from data up to the end of 2015, and the paper explicitly states: 'For back-testing purposes, we only use the data up to the end of 2015 to construct the prediction. The data from 2016 are only employed for comparison purposes with the obtained results.' Procedure 1 then builds the predictive distribution of future payments by Monte Carlo simulation from these estimated intensities and densities; no term in the simulated total payment is fitted to the realized 2016 payments or to the accident counts shown in Figure 8. Procedure 2's back-predicted accident intensity is obtained by plugging the independently estimated reporting intensity rho-hat and reporting-delay parameters theta-hat into Equation (1); even though the displacement-theorem argument in Equation (1) is mathematically questionable (the delay density is evaluated at t rather than at z-t, so the accident-time intensity is misspecified), this is a correctness issue, not circularity, because the accident intensity is a derived function of separately fitted inputs rather than a quantity fitted to the accident counts it is used to predict. The theoretical inference for the marked Poisson process relies on standard maximum-likelihood arguments and on external results such as Hjort and Pollard (2011) and Kingman (1993); the self-citations to the authors' earlier reserving papers are contextual rather than load-bearing. The empirical comparison against the bootstrap chain-ladder is an external benchmark, and the claimed outperformance is an out-of-sample comparison on the held-out year. No prediction in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fully parametric marked Poisson model: the shape of the report process, payment process, delay distribution, and amount distribution are all assumed, and the asymptotic theory further requires convexity and regularity conditions that are not checked for the empirical intensities. The back-prediction of unreported accidents additionally relies on the displacement theorem, which is applied with a density evaluated at the wrong argument.

free parameters (5)
  • Intensity parameters ρ (reporting process) = estimated by ML, not reported in text
    For bodily injury, ψ(z) = exp{ρ1 + ρ2 log z + ρ3 cos(2πz/ρ5) + ρ4 sin(2πz/ρ5)}; for material damage, similar with an additional quadratic term and ρ6. These govern the claim report rate and must be estimated from data.
  • Payment intensity parameters θ (ν, η) = estimated by ML
    λ(τ, Z_i) = exp{ν1 + ν2(τ - Z_i) + η1 cos(2πZ_i/η3) + η2 sin(2πZ_i/η3)}; fitted to payment times for both lines of business.
  • Reporting-delay distribution parameters ϑ = estimated by ML
    Log-normal shape c(z, ϑ1) and scale d(z, ϑ2) as truncated Fourier series with L = 2 periods, including unknown frequencies ξ; fitted to observed delays.
  • Payment amount distribution parameters ς = estimated by ML
    Log-normal parameters for payment amounts with the same Fourier structure; fitted to observed amounts.
  • Number of Fourier terms L = 2
    Chosen as the most flexible among L = 0, 1, 2 in Section 3.3; selection based on in-sample fit, not a formal criterion.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption M1: reporting times Z_i are arrival times of a non-homogeneous Poisson process with intensity ψ(t; ρ).
    Fundamental model assumption; unverifiable from the data beyond goodness-of-fit, and load-bearing for all of the asymptotics.
  • domain assumption Assumption N1: payment times of each claim are an independent non-homogeneous Poisson process with intensity λ(t, Z_i; θ).
    Fundamental model assumption; load-bearing for the payment simulation and likelihood.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumptions M2 and N2: convexity of h and g in the parameters holds for the specific intensity functions used (Examples 3, 4, 7).
    The paper asserts the assumptions are 'satisfied for a particular open convex R', but does not verify them; with unknown periods ρ5, ρ6, η3 the log-likelihood is generally not convex in those parameters.
  • standard math Displacement theorem (Kingman) correctly yields accident-time intensity (1).
    The theorem exists, but the paper evaluates f_W at t instead of z - t, so the derived intensity is wrong; this makes the application of the theorem incorrect.
  • domain assumption Independence of reporting delays and payment amounts across claims, with log-normal conditional densities for both.
    Stated in Sections 3.3 and 3.4; used to construct the omnibus likelihood; checked only informally via transformed scatterplots in Figure 5.
  • standard math Regularity conditions M3-M5 and N3-N5 for asymptotic normality.
    Assumed; analogues of standard M-estimator conditions, not verified for the applied models.
invented entities (1)
  • Infinitely stochastic process (marked non-homogeneous Poisson process with non-homogeneous Poisson process marks)
    purpose: Conceptual object nesting Cox processes and enabling micro-forecasting of event payments
    No new physical entity; it is a modelling construct. Independent evidence would be an empirical prediction test, which the paper provides only as a single-year backtest.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infinitely Stochastic Micro Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63RDRBPR

@misc{pith2026190810636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infinitely Stochastic Micro Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63RDRBPR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10636}
}
read the original abstract

Forecasting costs is now a front burner in empirical economics. We propose an unconventional tool for stochastic prediction of future expenses based on the individual (micro) developments of recorded events. Consider a firm, enterprise, institution, or state, which possesses knowledge about particular historical events. For each event, there is a series of several related subevents: payments or losses spread over time, which all leads to an infinitely stochastic process at the end. Nevertheless, the issue is that some already occurred events do not have to be necessarily reported. The aim lies in forecasting future subevent flows coming from already reported, occurred but not reported, and yet not occurred events. Our methodology is illustrated on quantitative risk assessment, however, it can be applied to other areas such as startups, epidemics, war damages, advertising and commercials, digital payments, or drug prescription as manifested in the paper. As a theoretical contribution, inference for infinitely stochastic processes is developed. In particular, a non-homogeneous Poisson process with non-homogeneous Poisson processes as marks is used, which includes for instance the Cox process as a special case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of the event occurrence process and the event development processes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of reported claims—empirical (observed) cumulative intensity in blue, esti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Weekly estimates (solid grey) and conditional temporal models: constant (cyan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quarterly averaged (with respect to the reporting date) reporting (waiting) delays in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pairwise relationship between the reporting delay and the claim payment amounts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Weekly estimates (only X1,t in solid grey) and conditional temporal models: constant (cyan dashed), linear trend (pink dotted), linear trend and one period (green dashed), and linear trend with two periods (blue solid for Xi,t and yellow dot-dashed for X1,t) for shape …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prediction of the distribution of the forthcoming payments for the next year (primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Predicted truncated accident dates (secondary aim)—triplets of bars represent: ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aigner, D., Knox-Lovell, C., and Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J. Econometrics , 6(1):21--37

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    and Plat, R

    Antonio, K. and Plat, R. (2014). Micro-level stochastic loss reserving for general insurance. Scand. Actuar. J. , 2014(7):649--669

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Arjas, E. (1989). The claims reserving problem in non-life insurance: Some structural ideas. ASTIN Bull. , 19(2):139--152

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Arnold, C. (2019). Death, statistics and a disaster zone: T he struggle to count the dead after H urricane M aria. Nature , 566(7742):22--25

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Azar, E. E. (1980). The conflict and peace databank ( COPDAB ) project. J. Conflict Resolut. , 24(1):143--152

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    L., Lin, X

    Badescu, A. L., Lin, X. S., and Tang, D. (2016). A marked C ox model for the number of IBNR claims: T heory. Insur. Math. Econ. , 69(1):29--37

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Basrak, B., Wintenberger, O., and Z ugec, P. (2018). On total claim amount for marked P oisson cluster models. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01788339

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    and L\' o pez-Mart\' i n, C

    Benito, S. and L\' o pez-Mart\' i n, C. (2018). A review of the state of the art in quantifying operational risk. J. Oper. Risk , 13(4):89--129

    work page 2018

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Billingsley, P. (2008). Probability and Measure . Wiley, New York, NY, 3rd edition

    2008

  2. [10]

    Bobashev, G., Goedecke, D., Yu, F., and Epstein, J. (2007). A hybric epidemic model: C ombining advantages of agent-based and equation-based approaches. In Proceedings -- 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE , pages 1532--1537

    2007

  3. [11]

    Bosma, N., Van Praag , M., Thurik, R., and De Witt , G. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Bus. Econ. , 23(3):227--236

    2004

  4. [12]

    Braithwaite, A. (2010). MIDLOC : Introducing the militarized interstate dispute location dataset. J. Peace Res. , 47(1):91--98

    2010

  5. [13]

    Burda, M., Harding, M., and Hausman, J. (2012). A P oisson mixture model of discrete choice. J. Econometrics , 166(2):184--203

    2012

  6. [14]

    Caldbick, S., Wu, X., Lynch, T., Al-Khatib, N., Andkhoie, M., and Farag, M. (2015). The financial burden of out of pocket prescription drug expenses in canada. Int. J. Health Econ. Ma. , 15(3):329--338

    2015

  7. [15]

    S., Rachev, S

    Chernobai, A. S., Rachev, S. T., and Fabozzi, F. J. (2007). Operational Risk: A guide to B asel II Capital Requirements, Models and Analysis . Wiley finance, New York, NY

    2007

  8. [16]

    Clauset, A. (2018). Trends and fluctuations in the severity of interstate wars. Science Advances , 4:1--9

    2018

  9. [17]

    and M ller, J

    Coeurjolly, J.-F. and M ller, J. (2014). Variational approach for spatial point process intensity estimation. Bernoulli , 20(3):1097--1125

    2014

  10. [18]

    Cohen, R. D. (2018). An operational risk capital model based on the loss distribution approach. J. Oper. Risk , 13(2):69--81

    2018

  11. [19]

    Collier, P., Hoeffler, A., and S\"oderbom, M. (2004). On the duration of civil war. J. Peace Res. , 41(3):253--273

    2004

  12. [20]

    and Grilli, L

    Colombo, M. and Grilli, L. (2008). Start-up size: T he role of external financing. Econ. Lett. , 88(1):243--250

    2008

  13. [21]

    Cressey, D. (2008). War survey points to millions more dead. Nature News . doi:10.1038/news.2008.901

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Kimber, A

    Crowder, M. J., Kimber, A. C., Smith, R. L., and Sweeting, T. J. (1991). Statistical Analysis of Reliability Data . Chapman and Hall, Malta, 1st edition

    1991

  15. [23]

    I., Hovelius, B., M\" o lstad, S., Liedholm, H., and Melander, A

    Ekedahl, A., Andersson, S. I., Hovelius, B., M\" o lstad, S., Liedholm, H., and Melander, A. (1995). Drug prescription attitudes and behaviour of general practitioners. Eur. J. Clinical Pharmacol. , 47(5):381--387

    1995

  16. [24]

    and Verrall, R

    England, P. and Verrall, R. (2002). Stochastic claims reserving in general insurance (with discussion). British Actuarial Journal , 8(3):443--518

    2002

  17. [25]

    England, P. D. and Verrall, R. J. (1999). Analytic and bootstrap estimates of prediction errors in claims reserving. Insur. Math. Econ. , 25(3):281--293

    1999

  18. [26]

    Engle, R. F. (2000). The econometrics of ultra-high-frequency data. Econometrica , 68(1):1--22

    2000

  19. [27]

    and Schwenkler, G

    Giesecke, K. and Schwenkler, G. (2018). Filtered likelihood for point processes. J. Econometrics , 204(1):33--53

    2018

  20. [28]

    S., Metternich, N

    Gleditsch, K. S., Metternich, N. W., and Ruggeri, A. (2014). Data and progress in peace and conflict research. J. Peace Res. , 51(2):301--314

    2014

  21. [29]

    and Antonio, K

    Godecharle, E. and Antonio, K. (2015). Reserving by conditioning on markers of individual claims: A case study using historical simulation. North American Actuarial Journal , 19(4):273--288

    2015

  22. [30]

    and Tucker, C

    Goldfarb, A. and Tucker, C. (2011). Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Market. Sci. , 30(3):389--404

    2011

  23. [31]

    F., Carter, F., Peterova, E., and Srinivasan, K

    G\"on\"ul, F. F., Carter, F., Peterova, E., and Srinivasan, K. (2001). Promotion of prescription drugs and its behavior on physicians' choice behavior. J. Marketing , 65:79--90

    2001

  24. [32]

    and Arjas, E

    Haastrup, S. and Arjas, E. (1996). Claims reserving in continuous time: A nonparametric B ayesian approach. ASTIN Bull. , 26(2):139--164

    1996

  25. [33]

    Hallberg, J. D. (2012). PRIO conflict site 1989--2008: A geo-referenced dataset on armed conflict. Conflict Manag. Peace , 29(2):219--232

    2012

  26. [34]

    Hansen, L. P. and Scheinkman, J. A. (2009). Long term risk: A n operator approach. Econometrica , 77(1):177--234

    2009

  27. [35]

    and Wolf, N

    Harrison, M. and Wolf, N. (2012). The frequency of wars. Econ. Hist. Rev. , 65(3):1055--1076

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hesselager, O. (1994). A M arkov model for loss reserving. ASTIN Bull. , 24(2):183--193

    1994

  29. [37]

    Hjort, N. L. and Pollard, D. (2011). Asymptotics for minimisers of convex processes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3806

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., and Rosen, H. (1994). Entrepreneurial decisions and liquidity constraints. Rand J. Econ. , 25:334--347

    1994

  31. [39]

    and Pe s ta, M

    Hudecov\' a , S . and Pe s ta, M. (2013). Modeling dependencies in claims reserving with GEE . Insur. Math. Econ. , 53(3):786--794

    2013

  32. [40]

    Hudecov\' a , S ., Pe s ta, M., and Hlubinka, D. (2017). Modelling prescription behaviour of general practitioners. Math. Slovaca , 67(1):1--17

    2017

  33. [41]

    Jewell, W. (1989). Predicting IBNYR events and delays, part I continuous time. ASTIN Bull. , 19:25--56

    1989

  34. [42]

    Jewell, W. (1990). Predicting IBNYR events and delays, part II discrete time. ASTIN Bull. , 20:93--111

    1990

  35. [43]

    Kazan, E. (2015). The innovative capabilities of digital payment platforms: A comparative study of A pple P ay & G oogle W allet. In 2015 International Conference on Mobile Business . Paper 4, http://aisel.aisnet.org/icmb2015/4

    2015

  36. [44]

    and McKendrick, A

    Kermack, W. and McKendrick, A. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 115(772):700--721

    1927

  37. [45]

    Kingman, J. F. C. (1993). Poisson Processes . Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    1993

  38. [46]

    Konecny, F. (1987). The asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators for marked P oisson processes with a cyclic intensity measure. Metrika , 34:143--155

    1987

  39. [47]

    Larsen, C. (2007). An individual claims reserving model. ASTIN Bull. , 37(1):113--132

    2007

  40. [48]

    Lawless, J. F. (1987). Regression methods for P oisson process data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. , 82(399):808--815

    1987

  41. [49]

    Lewis, P. A. W. and Shedler, G. S. (1979). Simulation of nonhomogeneous P oisson processes by thinning. Naval Research Logistics , 26(3):403--413

    1979

  42. [50]

    Liaukonyte, J., Teixeira, T., and Wilbur, K. C. (2015). Television advertising and online shopping. Market. Sci. , 34(3):311--330

    2015

  43. [51]

    and Allen, S

    Linda, J. and Allen, S. (2008). An introduction to stochastic epidemic models. In Mathematical Epidemiology , chapter 3, pages 81--120. Springer-Verlag

    2008

  44. [52]

    J., and Ma, D

    Liu, J., Kauffman, R. J., and Ma, D. (2015). Competition, cooperation, and regulation: U nderstanding the evolution of the mobile payments technology ecosystem. Electron. Commer. R. A. , 14(5):372--391

    2015

  45. [53]

    Liu, S. Q. and Mattila, A. S. (2019). Apple P ay: C oolness and embarrassment in the service encounter. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. , 78:268--275

    2019

  46. [54]

    and Chintangunta, P

    Manchanda, P. and Chintangunta, P. K. (2004). Responsiveness of physician prescription behavior of salesforce effort: A n individual level analysis. Market. Lett. , 15:129--145

    2004

  47. [55]

    Miller, R. H. and Lufi, H. S. (1994). Managed care plan performance since 1980: A literature analysis. JAMA -- J. Am. Med. Assoc. , 271(19):1512--1519

    1994

  48. [56]

    Norberg, R. (1993). Prediction of outstanding liabilities in non-life insurance. ASTIN Bull. , 23(1):95--115

    1993

  49. [57]

    Norberg, R. (1999). Prediction of outstanding liabilities II . M odel variations and extensions. ASTIN Bull. , 29(1):5--25

    1999

  50. [58]

    and Okhrin, O

    Pe s ta, M. and Okhrin, O. (2014). Conditional least squares and copulae in claims reserving for a single line of business. Insur. Math. Econ. , 56(1):28--37

    2014

  51. [59]

    Pigeon, M., Antonio, K., and Denuit, M. (2014). Individual loss reserving using paid-incurred data. Insur. Math. Econ. , 58:121--131

    2014

  52. [60]

    Proke s ov \'a , M., Dvo r \'a k, J., and Jensen, E. B. V. (2017). Two-step estimation procedures for inhomogeneous shot-noise C ox processes. Ann. I. Stat. Math. , 69(3):513--542

    2017

  53. [61]

    Rizoiu, M.-A., Mishra, S., Kong, Q., Carman, M., and Xie, L. (2018). SIW-Hawkes : L inking epidemic models and H awkes processes to model diffusions in finite populations. Technical report, arXiv:1711.01679v3

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Rokstad, K., Straand, J., and Fugelli, P. (1997). General practitioners' drug prescribing practice and diagnoses for prescribing: T he M re & R omsdal prescription study. J. Clin. Epidemiol. , 50(4):485--494

    1997

  55. [63]

    Schoenberg, F. P. (2005). Consistent parametric estimation of the intensity of a spatial-temporal point process. J. Stat. Plan. Infer. , 128(1):79--93

    2005

  56. [64]

    Schrodt, P. (2014). Seven deadly sins of contemporary quantitative political analysis. J. Peace Res. , 51(2):287--300

    2014

  57. [65]

    Taylor, G., Mc G uire, G., and Sullivan, J. (2008). Individual claim loss reserving conditioned by case estimates. Annals of Actuarial Science , 3(1--2):215--256

    2008

  58. [66]

    Verrall, R. J. and W\"uthrich , M. V. (2016). Understanding reporting delay in general insurance. Risks , 4(3):25

    2016

  59. [67]

    and Guan, Y

    Waagepetersen, R. and Guan, Y. (2009). Two-step estimation for inhomogeneous spatial point processes. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B. Met. , 71(3):685--702

    2009

  60. [68]

    Waagepetersen, R. P. (2007). An estimating function approach to inference for inhomogeneous N eyman-- S cott processes. Biometrics , 63(1):252--258

    2007

  61. [69]

    D., Greenhill, B

    Ward, M. D., Greenhill, B. D., and Bakke, K. M. (2010). The perils of policy by p-value: P redicting civil conflict. J. Peace Res. , 45(5):363--375

    2010

  62. [70]

    Watkins, C., Harvey, I., Carthy, P., Moore, L., Robinson, E., and Brawn, R. (2003). Attitudes and behaviour of general practitioners and their prescribing costs: A national cross sectional survey. Qual. and Saf. Health Care , 12:29--34

    2003

  63. [71]

    I., Tomberlin, T

    Weisberg, H. I., Tomberlin, T. J., and Chatterjee, S. (1984). Predicting insurance losses under cross-classification: A comparison of alternative approaches. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. , 2(2):170--178

    1984

  64. [72]

    White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica , 50(1):1--25

    1982

  65. [73]

    W \"u thrich, M. (2016). Machine learning in individual claims reserving. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 16--67. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2867897

    2016

  66. [74]

    and Merz, M

    W \"u thrich, M. and Merz, M. (2008). Stochastic claims reserving methods in insurance . Wiley finance series. John Wiley & Sons

    2008

  67. [75]

    Xiao, R. (2018). Identification and estimation of incomplete information games with multiple equilibria. J. Econometrics , 203(2):328--343

    2018

  68. [76]

    Yan, P. (2008). Distribution theory, stochastic processes and infectious disease modelling. In Mathematical Epidemiology , chapter 10, pages 229--293. Springer-Verlag

    2008

  69. [77]

    and Zhou, X

    Zhao, X. and Zhou, X. (2010). Applying copula models to individual claim loss reserving methods. Insur. Math. Econ. , 46:290--299

    2010

  70. [78]

    Zhao, X., Zhou, X., and Wang, J. (2009). Semiparametric model for prediction of individual claim loss reserving. Insur. Math. Econ. , 45:1--8

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.