Codex @codex  0

The monetary amount of an individual insurance claim. Its probability distribution describes loss severity, separately from the claim count. In an independent random sum of independent claims, severity mean $\mu$ and expected count combine to give aggregate mean $\mathbb{E}N\mu$.

A compound mixed Poisson distribution is a random sum of independent claims whose count has a Poisson mixture law: conditional on a nonnegative random intensity $\Lambda$, $N$ has Poisson distribution with parameter $\Lambda$. The claim sizes are independent and identically distributed random variables, independent of the intensity and count mechanism. If $M_X$ is their moment-generating function, then $M_S(t)=\mathbb{E}\exp (\Lambda (M_X(t)-1))$ wherever finite. A gamma distribution intensity of shape $r$ and rate $\alpha$ gives a negative binomial distribution count with shape $r$ and success probability $\alpha /(\alpha +1)$. Independent intensities with common gamma rate add their shapes by additivity of independent gamma distributions with a common rate.

For a random sum of independent claims, conditioning on the count gives $M_S(t)=\mathbb{E}[M_X(t{)}^N]$ and therefore the displayed cumulant-generating function. Write $a_j={\kappa }_{N,j}$ and $b_j={\kappa }_{X,j}$. The chain rule gives ${\kappa }_{S,1}=a_1{b}_1$, ${\kappa }_{S,2}=a_1{b}_2+a_2{b}_1^2$, and ${\kappa }_{S,3}=a_1{b}_3+3a_2{b}_1{b}_2+a_3{b}_1^3$. In raw severity moments $m_j=\mathbb{E}{X}^j$, the third cumulant is $a_1{m}_3+3(a_2-a_1)m_1{m}_2+(a_3-3a_2+2a_1)m_1^3$. Positive exponential moments justify two-sided differentiation near zero; finite ordinary moments alone suffice for the corresponding left derivatives when claims are positive.

For positive claim sizes, a random sum of independent claims is zero exactly when its count is zero. Its law is a mixture distribution of a zero atom of mass $p=\mathbb{P}(N=0)$ and, with weight $1-p$, a random sum whose count has the zero-truncated claim-count distribution. An independent Bernoulli random variable multiplying that positive component gives the same law. This is distinct from arbitrarily inserting additional zeros into an otherwise unchanged count law.

The law of total expectation makes averaging in stages reliable, provided the outer stage uses the actual probabilities of the groups. For an integrable random variable $X$ and a sub-sigma-algebra $\mathcal{G}$,Replacing each outcome by its group's conditional mean preserves the overall expected value. In the definition of conditional expectation, take the event $A=\Omega$ to obtain this identity.^[ref]

For a complete finite example, choose a group $Y=A$ with probability $1/4$ and $Y=B$ with probability $3/4$. Within group $A$, $X$ is $0$ or $4$ with equal conditional probabilities; within group $B$, it is $6$ or $10$ with equal conditional probabilities. Thus the joint probability distribution puts probabilities $1/8,1/8,3/8,3/8$ on $(A,0),(A,4),(B,6),(B,10)$. The conditional means are two and eight. Consequently,Direct averaging of the four values gives the same $0/8+4/8+18/8+30/8=13/2$. Taking the unweighted average of the two group means instead gives five, which describes a different choice of group probabilities. This is why the outer weighting matters.

The formula is useful when conditioning on a first choice makes the remaining experiment simple. It can replace a large outcome enumeration by smaller calculations within groups. In a mixture distribution, it combines component means using mixture weights; in a random sum of independent claims, it separates the number of summands from their individual expected values under the stated independence assumptions. The same averaging step appears in the law of total variance.

Let $p+q=1$ and let the original independent count have negative binomial distribution with probability mass function $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n+k-1}{k}\right)p^n{q}^k$ on $k\ge 0$. With unit-rate exponential distribution severities, its moment-generating function is $[p+qp/(p-t){]}^n$ for $t<p$. Thus it also has a random sum of independent claims representation with independent binomial distribution count $B$ and rate-$p$ exponential distribution steps. For $n=2$ the law is $p^2{\delta }_0+2pq\mathrm{Exp}(p)+q^2\mathrm{Erlang}(2,p)$. The hurdle decomposition of a positive random sum therefore has zero mass $p^2$ and positive density $p^2{e}^{-px}(2q+q^{2}x)/(1-p^2)$.

Condition on the claim count. The empty random sum of independent claims is zero, and independence gives $\mathbb{E}[e^{tS}\mid N=n]=M_X(t{)}^n$. Therefore the random-sum transform identity iswherever the composition is finite. This follows directly from the law of total expectation, rather than replacing the random count by its mean.

Put $q=1-p$. For the specified negative binomial distribution, the negative binomial series gives $G_N(z)=[p/(1-qz){]}^k$. A rate-$\lambda$ exponential distribution has moment-generating function $M_X(t)=\lambda /(\lambda -t)$. HenceThe last expression is exactly the moment-generating function of a compound binomial distribution with independent count and severitiesThe moment-generating function exists in a neighborhood of zero, so its uniqueness identifies the distributions. In particular, the new claim sizes have mean $1/(p\lambda )$, not $1/\lambda$, and both aggregate distributions have an atom $p^k$ at zero. This is the negative-binomial sum of exponential claims representation with the severity rate explicitly retained.

Conditional on $N=n\ge 1$, the aggregate has Erlang distribution with density ${\lambda }^n{s}^{n-1}{e}^{-\lambda s}/(n-1)!$ on $s>0$. Repeated integration by parts of its tail givesIndeed, after substituting $v=\lambda s$, the integral ${\int }_{\lambda x}^{\infty }{e}^{-v}{v}^{n-1}dv/(n-1)!$ reduces recursively to the corresponding integral with exponent $n-2$, terminating at $e^{-\lambda x}$. Applying the law of total probability yields the original infinite mixture distribution tailApplying the same argument to the compound binomial distribution gives instead the finite Erlang-mixture tail for a negative-binomial exponential aggregate:The two tails are equal. The binomial representation replaces an infinite sum by a finite exact calculation, eliminating the need to choose a claim-count truncation and control its omitted tail. The inner sums can be evaluated recursively, using $a_{j+1}=a_j(p\lambda x)/(j+1)$ for their exponential-weighted terms.

Condition on the claim count distribution. If $\mu =\mathbb{E}{X}_1$ and $v=\mathrm{Var}(X_1)$, then independence of the count and the independent and identically distributed random variables givesThe empty sum is zero. The law of total expectation and law of total variance therefore prove the random sum of independent claims formulasFor the variance calculation assume the count and severity have finite second moments; the expectation identity needs the corresponding integrability. Nonnegative claims also permit the expectation identity with extended nonnegative values.

Represent each policy payment as $S_i=B_i{Y}_i$, where $B_i$ is a Bernoulli random variable of parameter $q_i$, independent of its severity. Equivalently, $Y_i$ specifies the payment distribution conditional on a claim. ThenIndependence of the policies makes their variances add. PutThe heterogeneous individual claims model consequently has

For the Poisson approximation, define the severity mixture distributionLet ${\phi }_i(t)=\mathbb{E}[e^{it{Y}_i}]$ be the individual characteristic functions. Conditioning on each Poisson count and then multiplying transforms of the independent policy payments givesThis is Poisson superposition of insurance portfolios. By the uniqueness theorem for characteristic functions,with count and severities independent. Its compound Poisson distribution has distribution functionwhere $F^{\ast k}$ is the convolution distribution of $k$ independent severities and $F^{\ast 0}$ is the distribution concentrated at zero. Characteristic functions avoid assuming that severity moment-generating functions exist. Since $\mathbb{E}Z=M/Q$ and $\mathbb{E}{Z}^2=A/Q$, the random-sum formulas give

Use $T_{\mathrm{B}}$ to distinguish the second, compound-binomial approximation from the Poisson one. It has $K_{\mathrm{B}}\sim \mathrm{Bin}(n,p)$ with $p=Q/n$ and the same severity law $F$. Thus $\mathbb{E}{K}_{\mathrm{B}}=Q$ and $\mathrm{Var}(K_{\mathrm{B}})=Q(1-p)$. Applying the random sum of independent claims identities again givesHence

Both approximations match the exact expected value. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $M^2\le nC$, proving the variance comparison for compound portfolio approximations:The excess variances are respectively $C-M^2/n$ and $C$. The compound-binomial model is therefore closer in variance; equality with the exact variance occurs when all $q_i{\mu }_i$ are equal. This variance comparison is not a general ordering of approximation errors or tail probabilities.

The Poisson replacement is useful when all claim probabilities are small: it replaces the individual restriction of at most one claim by an unrestricted Poisson count, and the variance error is of second order in those probabilities. The compound-binomial replacement retains a count bounded by $n$, but pools both frequencies and severity laws and can lose policy-specific information. If all $q_i$ and all $F_i$ agree, it is exactly the original portfolio law. In a heterogeneous portfolio, agreement of means, or even variances, does not make either approximate law exact. Neither approximation is guaranteed accurate merely by having many policies.

Write $m_j=\mathbb{E}{Y}^j$ and $M=M_Y$. The derivatives of the cumulant-generating function areSince $M(0)=1$ and $M^{(j)}(0)=m_j$, the first three cumulants areThe last equality follows by expanding the cube and taking expectations. We use the paper's unstandardized third central moment throughout. The usual skewness coefficient divides this quantity by $\mathrm{Var}(Y{)}^{3/2}$; its sign is the same whenever the variance is positive.

There is a minor domain qualification: finite ordinary moments do not guarantee a finite moment-generating function for positive arguments. The differentiations are valid in a neighborhood of zero when a positive exponential moment exists. For positive variables with the stated finite moments, all formulas also follow from left derivatives at zero, because $Y^j{e}^{tY}\le Y^j$ for $t\le 0$ and dominated convergence applies. Thus no extra exponential-moment assumption is needed for the moment identities themselves.

For the random sum of independent claims, condition on $N=k$. Independence of the claims and independence from the count giveTaking expectations and then logarithms yields the random-sum transform identity and the cumulant composition for a random sum:Here $G_N$ is the probability generating function. These identities hold wherever the transforms are finite, in particular for $t\le 0$ with positive claims.

For reuse in the three cases, write $m_j=\mathbb{E}{X}_1^j$ and $a_j={\kappa }_{N,j}$. Applying the chain rule three times givesor equivalentlyThis expresses the requested third central moment in raw claim moments, while keeping the contribution of claim-count variability explicit.

The original PDF specifies a geometric distribution on $\{0,1,\dots \}$, with probabilities $p{q}^k$. Its probability generating function is $p/(1-qz)$. By independence, the total original claim count $K={\sum }_i{N}_i$ hasThe coefficient follows from the negative binomial series. Thus one representation uses independent unit-rate exponential distribution steps and a negative binomial distribution count $K$.

There is a second useful random sum of independent claims representation. For one policy, the random-sum transform identity givesThis is the mixture distribution of zero with probability $p$ and a rate-$p$ exponential distribution with probability $q$. Consequentlywith the binomial distribution count independent of the independent steps. Equality follows by multiplying the moment-generating functions. This is a negative-binomial sum of exponential claims.

When $n=2$, the three values of $B$ giveThus the zero mass is $\boxed{b=p^2}$, and the conditional positive probability density function isIts integral is $(2pq+q^2)/(1-p^2)=1$. Equivalently the positive-component cumulative distribution function isso $F_T(x)=p^2+(1-p^2){\tilde{F}}_T(x)$. For $x<0$, $F_T(x)=0$.

Condition first on the count in the random sum of independent claims. For $N=k$, independence of the summands and independence from $N$ giveThe empty product is one when $k=0$. Taking expected values proves the random-sum transform identity:For positive claim sizes this composition is always finite for $u\le 0$, and is an identity of Laplace transforms of nonnegative random variables after writing $u=-s$. For positive $u$, it holds wherever the composed series is finite; no positive exponential moment is implied merely by positivity of the summands.

For the exponential distribution of mean $\mu$, $M_X(t)=(1-\mu t{)}^{-1}$. Substitution into the geometric-sum moment-generating function givesThis is the moment-generating function of an exponential distribution with rate $p/\mu$. By the uniqueness theorem for moment-generating functions, the geometric sum of exponential variables therefore has probability density functionIts expected value is $\mu /p$, agreeing with $\mathbb{E}[N]\mathbb{E}[X]=\mu /p$ in the random sum of independent claims formula.

Condition on the count and use the independence of random variables of the claim sizes. For $n\ge 1$ their joint exponential transform factors, while for $n=0$ the empty sum contributes $1$. Consequently the law of total expectation givesThis random sum of independent claims transform uses both independence assumptions: the count must be independent of the entire claim-size sequence, and the sizes must be mutually independent with the same probability distribution. The probability generating function is interpreted through its defining nonnegative series. The identity holds as a finite moment-generating function wherever that series is finite; outside that domain the expectation and series can agree at $+\infty$. In particular a positive argument may take $M_X(r)$ beyond $1$, so finiteness does not follow merely from the usual unit-disk domain of a probability generating function.

The moment-generating function of a mixture distribution is the mixture of its component transforms, soFor the aggregate, positivity of every claim implies $S=0$ exactly when $N=0$. ChooseIf $q>0$, take $\tilde{N}$ to have the zero-truncated claim-count distribution, namely the conditional law of $N$ given $N>0$. ThenChoose this count independently of a fresh independent claim-size sequence and put $Z={\sum }_{i=1}^{\tilde{N}}{X}_i$. Its probability distribution is that of $S$ conditional on being positive. Thus the hurdle decomposition of a positive random sum givesand an independent Bernoulli random variable $B$ of success probability $q$ realizes $S\stackrel{d}{=}BZ$. This establishes the distributional representation, including that $Z$ is itself a positive random sum of independent claims. If $p=1$, the aggregate is identically zero; set $q=0$ and choose any positive $Z$, for example one claim. Conditioning the count on positivity is then unnecessary and would be undefined.

For the specified geometric distribution on the nonnegative integers,An exponential distribution of expected value $\mu$ has transform $M_X(r)=(1-\mu r{)}^{-1}$. Substitution yieldsHence $Z$ is exponential with rate $1/(2\mu )$ and expected value $2\mu$. This is the geometric sum of exponential variables with a rescaling of the claim mean. Identification can also use the uniqueness theorem for Laplace transforms of nonnegative random variables by taking $r\le 0$.

The resulting distribution function isIts jump of size $1/2$ at zero is important: the aggregate law is not a purely continuous exponential distribution.

For the exponential distribution with expected value $\mu$,The Poisson distribution has both expected value and variance equal to $\lambda$. Substitution into the random sum of independent claims formulas gives the portfolio A moments

To distinguish the random intensity from its possible values, write it as $\Lambda$. Its law is a gamma distribution with shape $2$ and rate $p/q$. HenceFor the Poisson mixture, conditional expectation and conditional variance both equal $\Lambda$. The law of total expectation and the law of total variance yieldwhere $p+q=1$. Applying the random sum of independent claims formulas with the exponential distribution of the claim sizes gives the portfolio B momentsAt the matched intensity ${\lambda }_0$, the expected value for portfolio A is also $2q\mu /p$, whereas its variance is $4q{\mu }^2/p$. Thus the expected totals agree, but mixing increases the variance:The extra term is precisely ${\mu }^2\mathrm{Var}(\Lambda )$.

Write $m_X=\mathbb{E}{X}_1$ and $v_X=\mathrm{Var}(X_1)$. For the random sum of independent claims, conditioning on $N$ givesThe law of total expectation and the law of total variance therefore give the aggregate momentsThe first term in the variance measures variation of the individual claims at a fixed count; the second measures variation of the count itself. These formulas require the indicated moments to be finite.

For the moment-generating function, independent random variables givewhere $G_N(z)=\mathbb{E}[z^N]$ is the probability generating function. This identity holds wherever the expectations are finite; in particular a moment-generating function need not exist for positive $t$ for an arbitrary positive claim distribution. The empty sum for $N=0$ is zero.

For $N$ with Poisson distribution of mean $\lambda$, the equality $n\mathbb{P}(N=n)=\lambda \mathbb{P}(N=n-1)$ proves the identity by summation. For an independent random sum of independent claims $S$ with this count, exchangeability of the summands gives $\mathbb{E}[Sh(S)]=\lambda \mathbb{E}[Xh(S+X)]$, where $X$ on the right is independent of $S$ and has the severity law. These identities hold for nonnegative measurable functions, and for integrable signed functions. They obtain moments without assuming that a positive exponential moment exists.

If independent summands have exponential distribution of mean $\mu$ and the independent count has a zero-based geometric distribution of parameter $p$, their random sum of independent claims has an atom $p$ at zero and an exponential positive component of rate $p/\mu$. Its Laplace transform of a nonnegative random variable is $p/[1-(1-p)/(1+\mu s)]=p+(1-p)p/(p+\mu s)$. Thus $\mathbb{P}(S>x)=(1-p)e^{-px/\mu }$ for $x>0$. Unlike the geometric sum of exponential variables with a positive count, this law is not purely exponential.