
constraint is absent produces a lower optimal loss, the hidden-
information does not suffer from the moral hazard issue [
8
]. In
this work, we focus on the influence of risk measures on the
insurance. Hence, we do not consider additional nonlinearities
on top of the random cyber loss modeled by a random variable
endowed with a parametric distribution. The validity of linear
contracts follows from the monotonicity property of the solution
to general contract problems [8].
Hidden-action contract problems are challenging because
of the bilevel nature. However, leveraging the linearity of the
contract and the first-order approach, we can simplify the
problem and derive its optimality conditions. The conditions
allow us to characterize the coverage and the premium in terms
of the derivative of the risk of the user with respect to his
action. By choosing proper risk measures, practitioners can
obtain optimal contracts which satisfy desired properties.
One of the most essential features of the principal-agent
models lies in that the distribution of the random losses is
parametric in the agent’s action. In our framework, how the
risks perceived by the insurer and the user change according to
the user’ actions captures how sensitive the insurer and the user
are towards the parameterization. We show that when, compared
to the user’s risk perception, the insurer’s risk perception
exhibits more aversion to random cyber losses and is more
sensitive to the parameterization, cyber insurance can enhance
system security by incentivizing the protection investment of the
agent. These requirements suggest the following characteristics
of the insurer. First, the insurer, who bears the responsibility
in evaluating the system risks, should be able to estimate the
cyber losses more cautiously than the user. Second, aiming
to design an incentive contract, the insurer should possess a
higher level of awareness of how the actions from the user
influence the system risks stochastically than the user himself.
Our result enriches the literature by introducing the possibility
that cyber insurance can incentivize the user’s system protection
investment and hence enhance the overall system security.
This possibility is not observed in traditional cyber insurance
problems where the risk perceptions are captured by nonlinear
utility functions [1], [9], [10].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we first
introduce the risk preference modeling, then we incorporate it
into the cyber insurance contract design problem. Section III
contains the analysis of the game. We discuss the roles of risk
perceptions in shaping the optimal contract and the relation
between risk sensitivity and system security. We use a case
study to further investigate the insurance contracts in Section
IV. Finally, Section V concludes the paper.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
In this section, we first introduce the definition of CRMs
and their analytical properties. Then, we introduce the cyber
insurance contract design problem with the risk preferences of
the insurer and the user described by CRMs.
A. Risk Preference Modeling
Consider the probability space
(Ξ,F)
of cyber loss samples
ξ∈Ξ⊂R+
endowed with the reference probability measure
P
. Let
Z:=Lp(Ξ,F,P)
denotes the space of random losses
Z:Ξ→R
with finite
p
-th order moment. The parameter
p
lives
in
[1,+∞)
. A risk measure
ρ
is a function
Z→R
that assigns
a deterministic value to a random loss. Classic approaches to
risk modeling includes using the expected loss, the standard
deviation of the loss, the value-at-risk, and etc. These risk
metrics can come in handy in many real situations due to their
simplicity and straightforwardness of interpretation. However,
the classic risk metrics are lacking in the following two ways.
First, one risk metric cannot fully characterize the behavior
of a random loss. A simple example would be that using
the expectation to characterize the risk of a Gaussian random
loss has
50%
chance to fail when the randomness is realized.
Second, human risk perceptions are different across individuals.
According to [
3
], humans tend to distinguish between losses and
gains and are likely to perceive the true probability of random
events with biases. Hence, risk metrics should characterize
human behaviors beyond merely risk-neutrality.
In this paper, we will use CRMs to characterize the risk
sensitivities that the insurer and the user exhibit.
Definition 1
(Coherent Risk Measures [
11
])
.
A function
ρ:
Z→R
is called a Coherent Risk Measure if for
Z,Z0∈Z
it
satisfies
(A1) Monotonicity:
ρ(Z)≥ρ(Z0)
if
Z(ξ)≥Z0(ξ)
for almost
everywhere ξ∈Ξ.
(A2) Convexity:
ρ(tZ + (1−t)Z0)≤tρ(Z)+(1−t)ρ(Z0)
for
t∈[0,1].
(A3) Translation equivariance: ρ(Z+a) = ρ(Z) + a if a ∈R.
(A4) Positive homogeneity: ρ(tZ) = tρ(Z)if t ≥0.
One definition of risk-aversion [
12
] is referred to the fact
that the perceived risk is not smaller than the expectation of the
random loss, i.e.,
ρ[·]≥E[·]
. A convex risk measure captures
the risk-aversion of decision-makers in this sense.
A CRM captures the decision-maker’s robustness consid-
eration to probabilistic uncertainty due to the following dual
representation [11], [13]:
ρ[Z(ξ)] = sup
ζ∈AZΞ
Z(ξ)ζ(ξ)dP(ξ),(1)
where
A⊂Z∗
denotes the dual set associated with the risk
measure
ρθ
and contains probability density functions with
respect to the probability measure
P
. The set
Z∗
denotes the
dual space of
Z
defined by
Z∗:Lq(Ξ,F,P)
with
1
p+1
q=1
.
The optimization problem (1) admits an optimal solution since
the set Ais convex and compact when p∈[1,+∞)[13].
The following is an important property of a risk measure.
Definition 2.
(Law-invariance.) A risk measure
ρ:Z→R
is
law-invariant with respect to the reference probability measure
P
, if
∀Z1,Z2∈Z
such that
P(Z1≤t) = P(Z2≤t)
for all
t∈R
,
then ρ(Z1) = ρ(Z2).