IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2506.13113.html

Dynamic Reinsurance Treaty Bidding via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Stella C. Dong
  • James R. Finlay

Abstract

This paper develops a novel multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) framework for reinsurance treaty bidding, addressing long-standing inefficiencies in traditional broker-mediated placement processes. We pose the core research question: Can autonomous, learning-based bidding systems improve risk transfer efficiency and outperform conventional pricing approaches in reinsurance markets? In our model, each reinsurer is represented by an adaptive agent that iteratively refines its bidding strategy within a competitive, partially observable environment. The simulation explicitly incorporates institutional frictions including broker intermediation, incumbent advantages, last-look privileges, and asymmetric access to underwriting information. Empirical analysis demonstrates that MARL agents achieve up to 15% higher underwriting profit, 20% lower tail risk (CVaR), and over 25% improvement in Sharpe ratios relative to actuarial and heuristic baselines. Sensitivity tests confirm robustness across hyperparameter settings, and stress testing reveals strong resilience under simulated catastrophe shocks and capital constraints. These findings suggest that MARL offers a viable path toward more transparent, adaptive, and risk-sensitive reinsurance markets. The proposed framework contributes to emerging literature at the intersection of algorithmic market design, strategic bidding, and AI-enabled financial decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Stella C. Dong & James R. Finlay, 2025. "Dynamic Reinsurance Treaty Bidding via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning," Papers 2506.13113, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2506.13113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.13113
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Hardy, 2001. "A Regime-Switching Model of Long-Term Stock Returns," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 41-53.
    2. Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-286, July.
    3. Klemperer, Paul, 1999. " Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-86, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexandre Carbonneau & Fr'ed'eric Godin, 2021. "Deep equal risk pricing of financial derivatives with non-translation invariant risk measures," Papers 2107.11340, arXiv.org.
    2. Mezzetti, Claudio & Pekec, Aleksandar Sasa & Tsetlin, Ilia, 2008. "Sequential vs. single-round uniform-price auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 591-609, March.
    3. Stuart Kells, 2003. "Explaining The Breadth Of Expert Estimate Ranges In Auctions Of Rare Books," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 873, The University of Melbourne.
    4. Jacob K. Goeree & Theo Offerman, 2003. "Competitive Bidding in Auctions with Private and Common Values," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(489), pages 598-613, July.
    5. Amar Cheema & Dipankar Chakravarti & Atanu R. Sinha, 2012. "Bidding Behavior in Descending and Ascending Auctions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 779-800, September.
    6. Adam, Marc T.P. & Krämer, Jan & Müller, Marius B., 2015. "Auction Fever! How Time Pressure and Social Competition Affect Bidders’ Arousal and Bids in Retail Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 468-485.
    7. Bobtcheff, Catherine & Alary, David & Haritchabalet, Carole, 2020. "Organizing insurance supply for new and undiversifiable risks," CEPR Discussion Papers 15234, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Satterthwaite, Mark A. & Williams, Steven R. & Zachariadis, Konstantinos E., 2022. "Price discovery using a double auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 57-83.
    10. Swider, Derk J. & Weber, Christoph, 2007. "Bidding under price uncertainty in multi-unit pay-as-bid procurement auctions for power systems reserve," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1297-1308, September.
    11. Amirhosein Mosavi & Yaser Faghan & Pedram Ghamisi & Puhong Duan & Sina Faizollahzadeh Ardabili & Ely Salwana & Shahab S. Band, 2020. "Comprehensive Review of Deep Reinforcement Learning Methods and Applications in Economics," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-42, September.
    12. Rachel R. Chen & Robin O. Roundy & Rachel Q. Zhang & Ganesh Janakiraman, 2005. "Efficient Auction Mechanisms for Supply Chain Procurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 467-482, March.
    13. Paul Klemperer, 2002. "What Really Matters in Auction Design," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 169-189, Winter.
    14. Alessio Brini & Daniele Tantari, 2021. "Deep Reinforcement Trading with Predictable Returns," Papers 2104.14683, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    15. Chu, Sing-Fat & Koh, Winston T. H. & Tse, Yiu Kuen, 2004. "Expectations formation and forecasting of vehicle demand: an empirical study of the vehicle quota auctions in Singapore," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 367-381, June.
    16. Çağıl Koçyiğit & Garud Iyengar & Daniel Kuhn & Wolfram Wiesemann, 2020. "Distributionally Robust Mechanism Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 159-189, January.
    17. Víctor M. Gómez‐Blanco, 2024. "A safe asset in early modern Castile, 1543–1714," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 77(1), pages 212-243, February.
    18. Ramanathan Subramaniam & R. Venkatesh, 2009. "Optimal Bundling Strategies in Multiobject Auctions of Complements or Substitutes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 264-273, 03-04.
    19. Schamel, Guenter, 2004. "Ebay Economics: Factors That Determine Online Auction Prices," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20407, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Chu, Singfat, 2012. "Allocation flexibility and price efficiency within Singapore’s Vehicle Quota System," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1541-1550.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2506.13113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.