Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 9 minor 62 references

Severity estimation in dependent collective risk models

T0 review · 2 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Pooled insurance claims sample the wrong distribution when frequency and severity are linked

desk verdict Solid paper identifying a real estimation problem in dependent collective risk models, with a clean fix. The core theorem is correct and the composite likelihood is well-motivated. Main limitation is the restriction to Sarmanov/FGM families for the tractable implementation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08719 v1 pith:FYW3GUT7 submitted 2026-07-09 stat.ME

Christopher Blier-Wong This is my paper
classification stat.ME
keywords claimdistributionseverityclaimscollectivepooledriskaggregate
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

In the standard collective risk model, actuaries pool all individual claim amounts across policies and fit a severity distribution to them. This paper proves that when claim counts and claim sizes are dependent, that pooled sample does not come from the true severity distribution at all. It converges to the law of an arbitrary observed claim — a size-biased mixture that over-weights policies with many claims. The bias is structural and does not shrink with more data. The paper then shows that this same size-biased law is tractable, and builds a composite likelihood estimator on it that correctly recovers the severity margin and the low-order dependence parameters, with asymptotic normality governed by a Godambe sandwich computed at the policy level rather than the claim level.

What carries the argument

Size-biased mixture (Theorem 1), composite likelihood on f_Y (equation 5), Godambe sandwich variance at the policy level (Theorem 2), stepwise stacked estimating equations for higher-order dependence (Theorem 3), Sarmanov copula Bernoulli-mixture representation yielding closed-form f_Y and admissibility constraints.

What would settle it

If one could construct a CRM where frequency and severity are dependent, the pooled claims are fit by naive maximum likelihood, and the fitted severity parameters converge to the true values as the number of policies grows, the paper's inconsistency claim would be refuted. The paper's own simulations show this does not happen: naive bias persists at m=10,000 policies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the observed-claim law F_Y, defined as the size-biased mixture F_Y(x) = sum_{n>=1} n p_N(n) / E[N] times F_{X|N=n}(x). The paper proves that the empirical distribution of pooled claims converges almost surely to F_Y (Theorem 1), not to the marginal severity law F_X. Under frequency-severity dependence, F_Y differs from F_X, so any margin-first procedure fitting F_X to pooled claims converges to the Kullback-Leibler projection of F_Y onto the fitted family, not to the true severity parameter (Corollary 2). The paper then constructs a composite likelihood from the count marginal and the observed-claim density f_Y, proves consistency and asymptotic normality with policy-cl

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that within each policy, the order in which claims appear carries no information about their sizes — formally, conditional exchangeability of the claim vector given the count. If claim order is informative (for instance, because deductibles erode over successive claims or because reporting order correlates with severity), the exchangeable reduction breaks down and the observed-claim law takes a different form.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper studies severity estimation in collective risk models (CRMs) where claim counts and severities are dependent. The central result (Theorem 1) shows that the empirical distribution of pooled claims converges almost surely to the law of an arbitrary observed claim Y, whose cdf is a size-biased mixture of conditional severity distributions. This implies that any margin-first procedure fitting the severity distribution directly to pooled claims is inconsistent under dependence (Corollary 2). The authors then build a composite likelihood on the observed-claim law FY, establish consistency and asymptotic normality with policy-level Godambe information (Theorem 2), and specialize everything to a Sarmanov CRM where FY, the aggregate mean, and low-order margins are available in closed form (Propositions 2–4). A stepwise extension (Theorem 3) handles higher-order within-policy dependence. A simulation study confirms the bias of naive pooled fitting, its correction by the composite likelihood, and the coverage properties of policy-level versus claim-level standard errors.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine and previously unrecognized gap in the actuarial statistics literature: the size-biased sampling structure of pooled claims in dependent CRMs. The identification of FY as the limit law of pooled claims, and the consequent inconsistency of standard two-stage copula estimation procedures (IFM, semiparametric rank-based methods), is a substantive methodological contribution with direct practical relevance. The composite likelihood correction is well-motivated and the policy-level Godambe sandwich is the correct variance formula for clustered claim data. The Sarmanov specialization provides closed-form expressions for every quantity the estimator requires, making the method implementable. The simulation study includes falsifiable predictions: Table 5 quantitatively demonstrates the undercoverage from claim-level score aggregation (coverage dropping to 0.84 at λ=10), and Table 2 shows the composite likelihood removes size-bias distortion. The paper ships no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, but the derivations are verifiable by hand and the simulation design is transparent.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, Theorem 4] The identification condition κ_N(η₀) ≠ 0 is the one assumption that could silently fail and is load-bearing for the central estimation claim. The paper states the condition but does not verify it for the simulation setup (Poisson counts with FGM kernel g₀(u) = u(1−u)). For Poisson(λ) counts, summation by parts gives κ_N(λ) = −(1/λ) Σ_{n≥1} F_N(n)(1−F_N(n)), which is strictly negative since each term is positive. Adding this verification (or an equivalent argument) in a remark after Theorem 4 would close the gap between the abstract identification condition and the concrete model used in the simulations, and would reassure practitioners that the condition is not vacuous.
  2. [§3.4, Step 2] The relationship between the marginal composite likelihood (5) built on fY and the stepwise Step-2 objective built on h1 is not fully clarified. Both estimate (η, ψ, θ01), and the paper notes (end of §3.4) that 'both consistently estimate (η, ψ, θ01) under their respective conditions,' but it does not state which the practitioner should prefer or whether one dominates the other in efficiency. Since the stepwise estimator uses the conditional margin f_{X|N} while the composite likelihood uses the marginal fY, a brief discussion of the trade-off (efficiency vs. simplicity, or conditions under which one is preferable) would strengthen the practical guidance.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§5.1, Theorem 4] The identification condition κ_N(η₀) ≠ 0 is stated abstractly. A remark verifying it for the Poisson–FGM case used in the simulations would reassure practitioners.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (5)] The composite likelihood objective is written as a sum over claims, but the asymptotic theory treats the policy as the sampling unit. A one-sentence reminder that the second sum is over a random number of terms determined by Ni, and that this is handled by the cluster-level M-estimation framework, would help readers unfamiliar with the framework.
  3. [§3.4] The stepwise Step 3 uses only the first pair of claims per eligible policy. The paper briefly mentions that reusing all C(Ni,2) pairs is possible but weights high-count policies quadratically. A sentence clarifying the expected efficiency loss from using one pair versus all pairs, even qualitatively, would help practitioners choose between the two options.
  4. [§6.2, Table 3] The near-identical E[S] estimates from naive and composite likelihood methods are an interesting and potentially misleading finding. The discussion in §6.2 explains the mechanism (both are driven by count and pooled-claim sample means), but a sentence emphasizing that this coincidence is specific to mean estimation and does not extend to variance or tail risk measures would strengthen the cautionary message for practitioners who validate severity models through E[S].
  5. [Table 4] Coverage for θ01 under the fY composite likelihood ranges from 0.940 to 0.978, with the highest values (0.976, 0.978) at m=10,000 suggesting slight overcoverage. A brief note on whether this is expected (e.g., finite-sample behavior of the Godambe sandwich) or an artifact would be helpful.
  6. [§4.1] The notation θ_S for the normalized centered mixed moment (Eq. 9) uses S as a subset, but S is also used for the aggregate loss S = Σ X_j. Using a different symbol for the subset (e.g., A or T) would avoid potential confusion.
  7. [Figure 1] The caption mentions 'within-policy severity dependence' from a projectively coherent construction, but the figure itself only shows the count–severity margin. A note clarifying that within-policy dependence does not affect FY (which depends only on θ01) would prevent misreading.
  8. [§2.1, Assumption 1] The assumption excludes mechanisms with informative claim order (deductible erosion, reporting-order effects). A forward reference to §4 noting that the Sarmanov construction satisfies this assumption would help readers gauge the scope of the restriction.
  9. [References] The paper cites Blier-Wong (2026) for the Bernoulli-mixture representation of Sarmanov copulas, which appears to be a companion/predecessor paper. If this reference is not yet published or available, a brief footnote noting its status would help readers, since Appendix A depends on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 1 (convergence of pooled claims to µ_Y) is proved from first principles via the SLLN applied to i.i.d. policy-level sums A_m and B_m; no self-citation is involved. Corollary 1 (integral identity) follows directly from the definition (3) of µ_Y. Corollary 2 (inconsistency of margin-first fitting) applies standard M-estimation theory (van der Vaart 1998) to the limit identified by Theorem 1. The composite likelihood (Theorem 2) is a valid M-estimation criterion whose population version is maximized at ϕ_0 by the KL inequality applied through Corollary 1; the Godambe sandwich is the standard variance formula for misspecified/clustered scores. The Sarmanov CRM section (Section 4) cites Blier-Wong (2026) for the Bernoulli-mixture representation, but this is a constructive tool, not a uniqueness theorem: Propositions 1–4 (admissibility, closed-form margins, observed-claim density, moments) are all proved within the paper itself, and Appendix A gives a self-contained construction. The identification condition κ_N(η_0)≠0 in Theorem 4 is stated as an assumption, not derived from the target result. No step reduces to its own inputs by definition, and no 'prediction' is a fitted input renamed.

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

The paper introduces no invented entities beyond the size-biased frequency coefficient, which is a derived quantity. The free parameters are standard CRM parameters (frequency, severity, dependence). The axioms are domain assumptions standard in copula-based CRMs, plus standard M-estimation regularity. The main structural assumption is conditional exchangeability, which is load-bearing for the mixture form and the Sarmanov closed forms.

free parameters (5)
  • theta_01 (frequency-severity dependence) = varied in simulation: {-0.5, 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.8}
    The bivariate dependence parameter between count and severity; estimated by the composite likelihood and varied in the simulation grid.
  • theta_12 (severity-severity dependence) = 0.36 in coherent-model experiment
    Within-policy dependence parameter; estimated in Step 3 of the stepwise procedure.
  • theta_012 (three-way interaction) = 0 in simulations
    Three-way dependence parameter; estimated in Step 3, set to 0 in simulations.
  • lambda (Poisson mean) = varied: {2, 5, 10}
    Frequency parameter; estimated by MLE in Step 1.
  • alpha, beta (Gamma shape, rate) = true values (2, 1)
    Severity margin parameters; estimated jointly in the composite likelihood.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conditional exchangeability (Assumption 1): for each n>=1, (X1,...,Xn) | N=n is exchangeable.
    Invoked in Theorem 1 to derive the mixture form (4) and throughout the Sarmanov specialization. Excludes order-informative mechanisms.
  • domain assumption Tractable observed-claim model (Assumption 2): there exists a parametric family FY(.;phi) such that Y has cdf FY(.;phi_0).
    Required for the composite likelihood (5) and Theorem 2. Verified for Sarmanov but must be checked family by family.
  • domain assumption Tractable low-order margins (Assumption 3): h1 and h2 have closed forms involving only low-order parameters.
    Required for the stepwise extension of Section 3.4. Holds for FGM and Sarmanov by the subset-expansion property.
  • standard math Standard M-estimation regularity conditions (compactness, smoothness, envelope, identification, nonsingularity).
    Invoked in Theorems 2, 3, and 4 for consistency and asymptotic normality, referencing van der Vaart (1998, Chapters 5 and 19).
  • domain assumption E[N] in (0, infinity) for Theorem 1; E[N^2] < infinity for asymptotic normality.
    Stated in Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. Holds automatically for Poisson counts.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov consistency of the copula sequence (C_{k+1})_{k>=1}.
    Stated in Section 2.1 as part of the model specification; constrains Sarmanov parameters for unbounded support.
invented entities (1)
  • Size-biased frequency coefficient kappa_N(eta) independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar summarizing how strongly the count distribution drives the size-bias correction in the observed-claim law FY.
    Defined as E[N*A(N;eta)]/E[N] in (16), derived from the model, not postulated. Computed in closed form for Poisson counts. Falsifiable: if kappa_N(eta_0)=0, the pooled claims carry no information about theta_01 (Theorem 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Severity estimation in dependent collective risk models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYW3GUT7

@misc{pith2026260708719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Severity estimation in dependent collective risk models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYW3GUT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08719}
}
read the original abstract

The collective risk model represents the aggregate loss of an insurance portfolio as a random sum of individual claim severities. When claim counts and severities are dependent, the claims pooled across policies are no longer a sample from the marginal severity distribution. We show that their empirical distribution converges to the law of an arbitrary observed claim, a size-biased mixture of the conditional severity distributions, so any procedure that fits the severity margin directly to pooled claims is inconsistent in general. The same result identifies the distribution that the pooled claims do sample, and we build a composite likelihood estimation procedure on that distribution. We establish consistency and asymptotic normality, with Godambe information in which the policy, rather than the claim, is the sampling unit. In a Sarmanov collective risk model, the observed-claim density and the aggregate mean are in closed form. A simulation study measures the bias of naive pooled-severity fitting, its correction by the composite likelihood, and the coverage of the policy-level standard errors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08719 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Empirical cdf Fbm of the pooled claim severities (black), true marginal severity cdf FX (red), and observed-claim cdf FY (dashed blue) for m = 1 000 000 policies simulated from a CRM with Poisson(1/2) counts, exponential severities with mean 100, and positive frequency– severity dependence from an FGM copula with θ01 = 0.72, generated from a projectively coherent construction with within-policy severity dependence. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Median bias of the Gamma shape estimate αˆ (left) and rate estimate βˆ (right) at m = 10 000 in the grid experiment. Colour distinguishes the estimator (red: naive margin-first; blue: composite likelihood); line type distinguishes the frequency regime λ ∈ {2, 5, 10}. pooled claims sample FY , and E[S] = E[N]E[Y ], so a plug-in built from the count mean and the pooled-claim mean estimates E[S] consistently even thoug… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.09016 , journal =

    Stochastic Representation of. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.09016 , journal =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.09016

  2. [2]

    Advances in Applied Probability , volume =

    Exchangeable. Advances in Applied Probability , volume =

    work page

  3. [3]

    Probability Surveys , volume =

    The Infinite Extendibility Problem for Exchangeable Real-Valued Random Vectors , author =. Probability Surveys , volume =

    work page

  4. [4]

    Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , volume =

    Collective Risk Models with. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , volume =

    work page

  5. [5]

    Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume =

    Collective Risk Models with Dependence , author =. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume =

    work page

  6. [6]

    The Annals of Applied Statistics , volume =

    Regression for Copula-Linked Compound Distributions with Applications in Modeling Aggregate Insurance Claims , author =. The Annals of Applied Statistics , volume =

    work page

  7. [7]

    Publications de l'Institut de Statistique de l'Universit

    Sklar, Abe , title =. Publications de l'Institut de Statistique de l'Universit. 1959 , language =

    work page 1959

  8. [8]

    A Primer on Copulas for Count Data , journal =

    Genest, Christian and Ne. A Primer on Copulas for Count Data , journal =. 2007 , doi =

    work page 2007

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Biometrika , volume =

    Genest, Christian and Ghoudi, Kamel and Rivest, Louis-Paul , title =. Biometrika , volume =. 1995 , doi =

    1995

  2. [10]

    Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =

    Joe, Harry , title =. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  3. [11]

    The Canadian Journal of Statistics , volume =

    Tsukahara, Hideatsu , title =. The Canadian Journal of Statistics , volume =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  4. [12]

    The Annals of Statistics , volume =

    Vardi, Yehuda , title =. The Annals of Statistics , volume =. 1982 , doi =

    1982

  5. [13]

    The Annals of Statistics , volume =

    Vardi, Yehuda , title =. The Annals of Statistics , volume =. 1985 , doi =

    1985

  6. [14]

    Godambe, V. P. , title =. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , volume =. 1960 , doi =

    1960

  7. [15]

    Godambe, V. P. and Heyde, C. C. , title =. International Statistical Review , volume =. 1987 , doi =

    1987

  8. [16]

    AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis , volume =

    Varin, Cristiano , title =. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis , volume =. 2008 , doi =

    2008

  9. [17]

    Statistica Sinica , volume =

    Varin, Cristiano and Reid, Nancy and Firth, David , title =. Statistica Sinica , volume =. 2011 , url =

    2011

  10. [18]

    Biometrika , volume =

    Varin, Cristiano and Vidoni, Paolo , title =. Biometrika , volume =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  11. [19]

    and Smyth, Gordon K

    Dunn, Peter K. and Smyth, Gordon K. , title =. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , volume =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  12. [20]

    ASTIN Bulletin , volume =

    Liu, Hanming and Wang, Ruodu , title =. ASTIN Bulletin , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  13. [21]

    Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , year =

    Czado, Claudia and Kastenmeier, Rainer and Brechmann, Eike Christian and Min, Aleksey , title =. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , year =

  14. [22]

    Total loss estimation using copula-based regression models , journal =

    Kr. Total loss estimation using copula-based regression models , journal =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  15. [23]

    Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume =

    Shi, Peng and Feng, Xiaoping and Ivantsova, Anastasia , title =. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  16. [24]

    Generalized linear models for dependent frequency and severity of insurance claims , journal =

    Garrido, Jos. Generalized linear models for dependent frequency and severity of insurance claims , journal =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  17. [25]

    Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , year =

    Oh, Rosy and Ahn, Jae Youn and Lee, Woojoo , title =. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , year =

  18. [26]

    Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =

    Cambanis, Stamatis , title =. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =. 1977 , doi =

    1977

  19. [27]

    Sarmanov, O. V. , title =. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR , volume =. 1966 , url =

    1966

  20. [28]

    and McFadden, Daniel , title =

    Newey, Whitney K. and McFadden, Daniel , title =. Handbook of Econometrics , volume =. 1994 , publisher =

    1994

  21. [29]

    van der Vaart, A. W. , title =. 1998 , publisher =

    1998

  22. [30]

    and Valdez, Emiliano A

    Frees, Edward W. and Valdez, Emiliano A. , title =. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume =. 2008 , doi =

    2008

  23. [31]

    and Kim, Joseph H.T

    Park, Sojung C. and Kim, Joseph H.T. and Ahn, Jae Youn , title =. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  24. [32]

    Sarmanov distribution for modeling dependence between the frequency and the average severity of insurance claims , journal =

    Vernic, Raluca and Bolanc. Sarmanov distribution for modeling dependence between the frequency and the average severity of insurance claims , journal =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  25. [33]

    The Annals of Applied Statistics , volume =

    Shi, Peng and Feng, Xiaoping and Boucher, Jean-Philippe , title =. The Annals of Applied Statistics , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  26. [34]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A , volume =

    Yang, Lu and Shi, Peng , title =. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  27. [35]

    and Panjer, Harry H

    Klugman, Stuart A. and Panjer, Harry H. and Willmot, Gordon E. , title =. 2012 , publisher =

    2012

  28. [36]

    2008 , publisher =

    Kaas, Rob and Goovaerts, Marc and Dhaene, Jan and Denuit, Michel , title =. 2008 , publisher =

    2008

  29. [37]

    2005 , publisher =

    Denuit, Michel and Dhaene, Jan and Goovaerts, Marc and Kaas, Rob , title =. 2005 , publisher =

    2005

  30. [38]

    Patil, G. P. and Rao, C. R. , title =. Biometrics , volume =. 1978 , doi =

    1978

  31. [39]

    Rao, C. R. , title =. Sankhy

  32. [40]

    and Vardi, Yehuda and Wellner, Jon A

    Gill, Richard D. and Vardi, Yehuda and Wellner, Jon A. , title =. The Annals of Statistics , volume =. 1988 , doi =

    1988

  33. [41]

    ASTIN Bulletin , volume =

    Denuit, Michel , title =. ASTIN Bulletin , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  34. [42]

    Probability Surveys , volume =

    Arratia, Richard and Goldstein, Larry and Kochman, Fred , title =. Probability Surveys , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  35. [43]

    , title =

    Nikoloulopoulos, Aristidis K. , title =. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  36. [44]

    2023 , month = may, primaryclass =

    Identifiability and inference for copula-based semiparametric models for random vectors with arbitrary marginal distributions , author =. 2023 , month = may, primaryclass =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.13408 , journal =

    2023 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    , title =

    Lindsay, Bruce G. , title =. Statistical Inference from Stochastic Processes , editor =. 1988 , publisher =

    1988

  38. [46]

    Cox, D. R. and Reid, Nancy , title =. Biometrika , volume =. 2004 , doi =

    2004

  39. [47]

    , title =

    Bhat, Chandra R. , title =. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  40. [48]

    Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =

    Joe, Harry and Lee, Youngjo , title =. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  41. [49]

    Statistica Sinica , volume =

    Pace, Luigi and Salvan, Alessandra and Sartori, Nicola , title =. Statistica Sinica , volume =

  42. [50]

    and Bate, Steven , title =

    Chandler, Richard E. and Bate, Steven , title =. Biometrika , volume =. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  43. [51]

    Annales de l'Universit

    Eyraud, Henri , title =. Annales de l'Universit

  44. [52]

    Mitteilungsblatt f

    Morgenstern, Dietrich , title =. Mitteilungsblatt f

  45. [53]

    , title =

    Gumbel, Emil J. , title =. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume =. 1960 , doi =

    1960

  46. [54]

    Farlie, Dennis J. G. , title =. Biometrika , volume =. 1960 , doi =

    1960

  47. [55]

    Communications in Statistics---Theory and Methods , volume =

    Lee, Mei-Ling Ting , title =. Communications in Statistics---Theory and Methods , volume =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  48. [56]

    Multivariate count data generalized linear models: Three approaches based on the

    Bolanc. Multivariate count data generalized linear models: Three approaches based on the. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  49. [57]

    Frequency and severity dependence in the collective risk model: An approach based on

    Bolanc. Frequency and severity dependence in the collective risk model: An approach based on. Mathematics , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  50. [58]

    Sarmanov family of multivariate distributions for bivariate dynamic claim counts model , journal =

    Abdallah, Anas and Boucher, Jean-Philippe and Cossette, H. Sarmanov family of multivariate distributions for bivariate dynamic claim counts model , journal =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  51. [59]

    ASTIN Bulletin , volume =

    Hashorva, Enkelejd and Ratovomirija, Gildas , title =. ASTIN Bulletin , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  52. [60]

    2014 , publisher =

    Joe, Harry , title =. 2014 , publisher =

    2014

  53. [61]

    , title =

    Nelsen, Roger B. , title =. 2006 , publisher =

    2006

  54. [62]

    Composite likelihood estimation method for hierarchical

    Cossette, H. Composite likelihood estimation method for hierarchical. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.