Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T14:51:20.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Worst-case moments under partial ambiguity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2023

Qihe Tang Open the ORCID record for Qihe Tang [Opens in a new window]  and
Yunshen Yang Open the ORCID record for Yunshen Yang [Opens in a new window]
Qihe Tang
Affiliation:
School of Risk and Actuarial Studies, UNSW Business School, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Yunshen Yang*
Affiliation:
School of Risk and Actuarial Studies, UNSW Business School, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: yunshen.yang@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The model uncertainty issue is pervasive in virtually all applied fields but especially critical in insurance and finance. To hedge against the uncertainty of the underlying probability distribution, which we refer to as ambiguity, the worst case is often considered in quantifying the underlying risk. However, this worst-case treatment often yields results that are overly conservative. We argue that, in most practical situations, a generic risk is realized from multiple scenarios and the risk in some ordinary scenarios may be subject to negligible ambiguity so that it is safe to trust the reference distributions. Hence, we only need to consider the worst case in the other scenarios where ambiguity is significant. We implement this idea in the study of the worst-case moments of a risk in the hope to alleviate the over-conservativeness issue. Note that the ambiguity in our consideration exists in both the scenario indicator and the risk in the corresponding scenario, leading to a two-fold ambiguity issue. We employ the Wasserstein distance to construct an ambiguity ball. Then, we disentangle the ambiguity along the scenario indicator and the risk in the corresponding scenario, so that we convert the two-fold optimization problem into two one-fold problems. Our main result is a closed-form worst-case moment estimate. Our numerical studies illustrate that the consideration of partial ambiguity indeed greatly alleviates the over-conservativeness issue.

Keywords

Worst-case riskscenario analysispartial ambiguitythe Wasserstein distancebootstrapping
Type
Research Article
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , May 2023 , pp. 443 - 465
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Actuarial Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.M. and Heath, D. (1999) Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asimit, A.V., Bignozzi, V., Cheung, K.C., Hu, J. and Kim, E.S. (2017) Robust and Pareto optimality of insurance contracts. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 720–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asimit, A.V., Hu, J. and Xie, Y. (2019) Optimal robust insurance with a finite uncertainty set. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 87, 67–81.Google Scholar
Bayraksan, G. and Love, D.K. (2015) Data-driven stochastic programming using phi-divergences. In The Operations Research Revolution, pp. 1–19. INFORMS.Google Scholar
Ben-Tal, A., Den Hertog, D., De Waegenaere, A., Melenberg, B. and Rennen, G. (2013) Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science, 59(2), 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, L. (2021) What is partial ambiguity? Economics & Philosophy, 38(2), 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, C., Kazzi, R. and Vanduffel, S. (2020) Range Value-at-Risk bounds for unimodal distributions under partial information. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 94, 9–24.Google Scholar
Bernard, C., Rüschendorf, L., Vanduffel, S. and Wang, R. (2017) Risk bounds for factor models. Finance and Stochastics, 21(3), 631–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birghila, C., Boonen, T.J. and Ghossoub, M. (2020) Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birghila, C. and Pflug, G.C. (2019) Optimal XL-insurance under Wasserstein-type ambiguity. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 88, 30–43.Google Scholar
Blanchet, J., Lam, H., Tang, Q. and Yuan, Z. (2019) Robust actuarial risk analysis. North American Actuarial Journal, 23(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchet, J. and Murthy, K. (2019) Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport. Mathematics of Operations Research, 44(2), 565–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, A.J. (2000) A discussion of parameter and model uncertainty in insurance. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 27(3), 313–330.Google Scholar
Chen, A. and Su, X. (2009) Knightian uncertainty and insurance regulation decision. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 32(1), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, S.H., Miao, B. and Zhong, S. (2017) Partial ambiguity. Econometrica, 85(4), 1239–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornilly, D., Rüschendorf, L. and Vanduffel, S. (2018) Upper bounds for strictly concave distortion risk measures on moment spaces. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 82, 141–151.Google Scholar
Delage, E. and Ye, Y. (2010) Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems. Operations Research, 58(3), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embrechts, P., Höing, A. and Puccetti, G. (2005) Worst VaR scenarios. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 37(1), 115–134.Google Scholar
Fournier, N. and Guillin, A. (2015) On the rate of convergence in Wasserstein distance of the empirical measure. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 162(3), 707–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Y., Iwaki, H. and Osaki, Y. (2017) An economic premium principle under the dual theory of the smooth ambiguity model. ASTIN Bulletin, 47(3), 787–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, R. and Kleywegt, A. (in press) Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with Wasserstein distance. Mathematics of Operations Research. Available at https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2022.1275.Google Scholar
Ghossoub, M. (2019a) Budget-constrained optimal insurance without the nonnegativity constraint on indemnities. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 84, 22–39.Google Scholar
Ghossoub, M. (2019b) Budget-constrained optimal insurance with belief heterogeneity. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 89, 79–91.Google Scholar
Glasserman, P. and Xu, X. (2014) Robust risk measurement and model risk. Quantitative Finance, 14(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, V. (2019) Near-optimal Bayesian ambiguity sets for distributionally robust optimization. Management Science, 65(9), 4242–4260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hürlimann, W. (2002) Analytical bounds for two value-at-risk functionals. ASTIN Bulletin, 32(2), 235–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, W., Escobar-Anel, M. and Ren, J. (2020). Optimal insurance contracts under distortion risk measures with ambiguity aversion. ASTIN Bulletin, 50(2), 619–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaas, R., Laeven, R.J. and Nelsen, R.B. (2009) Worst VaR scenarios with given marginals and measures of association. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 44(2), 146–158.Google Scholar
Kannan, R., Bayraksan, G. and Luedtke, J.R. (2020) Residuals-based distributionally robust optimization with covariate information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.01088.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Mohajerin Esfahani, P., Nguyen, V.A. and Shafieezadeh-Abadeh, S. (2019) Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization: Theory and applications in machine learning. In Operations Research & Management Science in the Age of Analytics (INFORMS), pp. 130–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, H. (2019) Recovering best statistical guarantees via the empirical divergence-based distributionally robust optimization. Operations Research, 67(4), 1090–1105.Google Scholar
Lam, H. and Mottet, C. (2017) Tail analysis without parametric models: A worst-case perspective. Operations Research, 65(6), 1696–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsman, Z. and Tsanakas, A. (2012) Parameter uncertainty in exponential family tail estimation. ASTIN Bulletin, 42(1), 123–152.Google Scholar
Li, L., Shao, H., Wang, R. and Yang, J. (2018) Worst-case range value-at-risk with partial information. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 9(1), 190–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H. and Wang, R. (2017) Collective risk models with dependence uncertainty. ASTIN Bulletin, 47(2), 361–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohajerin Esfahani, P. and Kuhn, D. (2018) Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the Wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Mathematical Programming, 171(1), 115–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panaretos, V.M. and Zemel, Y. (2019) Statistical aspects of Wasserstein distances. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 6, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payzan-LeNestour, E. and Woodford, M. (2022) Outlier blindness: A neurobiological foundation for neglect of financial risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(3), 1316–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesenti, S. and Jaimungal, S. (2020) Portfolio optimisation within a Wasserstein ball. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, G.W., Shevchenko, P.V. and Wüthrich, M.V. (2009) Model uncertainty in claims reserving within Tweedie’s compound Poisson models. ASTIN Bulletin, 39(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pflug, G.C., Timonina-Farkas, A. and Hochrainer-Stigler, S. (2017) Incorporating model uncertainty into optimal insurance contract design. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 73, 68–74.Google Scholar
Pflug, G. and Wozabal, D. (2007) Ambiguity in portfolio selection. Quantitative Finance, 7(4), 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, I. (2007) Robust mean-covariance solutions for stochastic optimization. Operations Research, 55(1), 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimian, H., Bayraksan, G. and Homem-de-Mello, T. (2019) Controlling risk and demand ambiguity in newsvendor models. European Journal of Operational Research, 279(3), 854–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, C.Y. and Therond, P.E. (2014) Distortion risk measures, ambiguity aversion and optimal effort. ASTIN Bulletin, 44(2), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarf, H. (1958) A min-max solution of an inventory problem. In Studies in the Mathematical Theory of Inventory and Production (eds. Arrow, K.J., Karlin, S. and Scarf, H.E.), pp. 201–209. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Villani, C. (2009) Optimal Transport: Old and New. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, R., Peng, L. and Yang, J. (2013) Bounds for the sum of dependent risks and worst Value-at-Risk with monotone marginal densities. Finance and Stochastics, 17(2), 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wozabal, D. (2012) A framework for optimization under ambiguity. Annals of Operations Research, 193(1), 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wozabal, D. (2014) Robustifying convex risk measures for linear portfolios: A nonparametric approach. Operations Research, 62(6), 1302–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, C. and Guan, Y. (2018) Data-driven risk-averse stochastic optimization with Wasserstein metric. Operations Research Letters, 46(2), 262–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, L. and Zhu, W. (2011) Ambiguity aversion: A new perspective on insurance pricing. ASTIN Bulletin, 41(1), 157–189.Google Scholar