A credibility-based Erlang mixture model for pricing crop reinsurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address some of the fundamental issues surrounding crop insurance ratemaking, from the perspective of the reinsurer, through the development of a scientific pricing framework. Design/methodology/approach – The generating process of the historical loss cost ratio's (LCR's) are reviewed, and the Erlang mixture distribution is proposed. A modified credibility approach is developed based on the Erlang mixture distribution and the liability weighted LCR, and information from the observed data of the individual region/province is integrated with the collective experience of the entire crop reinsurance program in Canada. Findings – A comprehensive data set representing the entire crop insurance sector in Canada is used to show that the Erlang mixture distribution captures the tails of the data more accurately compared to conventional distributions. Further, the heterogeneous credibility premium based on the liability weighted LCR's is more conservative, and provides a more scientific approach to enhance the reinsurance pricing. Research limitations/implications – Credibility models are in the early stages of application in the area of agriculture insurance, therefore, the credibility models presented in this paper could be verified with data from other geographical regions. Practical implications – The credibility-based Erlang mixture model proposed in this paper should be useful for crop insurers and reinsurers to enhance their ratemaking frameworks. Originality/value – This is the first paper to introduce the Erlang mixture model in the context of agricultural risk modeling. Two modified versions of the Bühlmann-Straub credibility model are also presented based on the liability weighted LCR to enhance the reinsurance pricing framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".