Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 200, Issue 1, pp 93–108 | Cite as

Entropy programming modeling of IBNR claims reserves

  • Éva KomáromiEmail author


The key focus of the paper is the introduction of a new deterministic approach to outstanding claims reserving in general insurance. The goals are to present a class of entropy programming models for determining claims reserves estimates; to justify popular simple techniques like the chain ladder technique and the separation method; to establish close connection of entropy programming models with log-linear models, maximum likelihood estimates; and to suggest new methods in the entropy programming framework.


IBNR claims reserve Entropy programming Convex programming Chain ladder technique Multiplicative models Generalized linear models Maximum likelihood estimates 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bornhutter, R. L., & Ferguson, R. E. (1972). The actuary and IBNR. In Proceedings of the casualty actuarial society: Vol. LIX (pp. 181–195). Google Scholar
  2. Bregman, L. (1967). The relaxation method of finding the common points of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7, 200–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhlmann, H. (1983). Estimation of IBNR reserves by the methods chain ladder, cape cod, and complementary loss ratio. Unpublished. Google Scholar
  4. Csiszár, I. (1967). Information type measures of difference of probability distributions and indirect observations. Studia Scientiarum Mathematicarum Hungarica, 2, 299–318. Google Scholar
  5. Encyclopedia (2004). Encyclopedia of actuarial science. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  6. England, P. D., & Verrall, R. J. (2002). Stochastic claims reserving in general insurance. British Actuarial Journal, 8, 443–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang, S.-C., Rajasekera, J. R., & Tsao, H. S. J. (1997). Entropy optimization and mathematical programming. In Kluwer’s international series. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  8. Iusem, A. N., Svaiter, B. F., & Teboulle, M. (1994). Entropy-like proximal methods in convex programming. Mathematics of Operations Research, 19, 790–814. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaas, R., Goovaerts, M., Dhaene, J., & Denuit, M. (2001). Modern actuarial risk theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  10. Kas, P., & Klafszky, E. (1993). On the duality of the mixed entropy programming. Optimization, 27(3), 253–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiwiel, K. C. (1997). Proximal minimization methods with generalized Bregman functions. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 35, 1142–1168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mack, T. (1993). Distribution free calculation of the standard error of chain ladder estimates. ASTIN Bulletin, 23(2), 213–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mangasarian, O. L. (1969). Nonlinear programming. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  14. Stanard, J. N. (1985). A simulation test of prediction errors of loss reserve estimation techniques. Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society, LXXII, 124–148. Google Scholar
  15. Venter, G. (2006). Discussion of the mean square error of prediction in the chain ladder reserving method. ASTIN Bulletin, 36(2), 566–571. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Corvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations