Generalized Linear Mixed Models for Dependent Compound Risk Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ratemaking, calculation of a pure premium has traditionally been based on modeling frequency and severity in an aggregated claims model. For simplicity, it has been a standard practice to assume the independence of loss frequency and loss severity. In recent years, there is sporadic interest in the actuarial literature exploring models that departs from this independence. In this article, we extend the work of Garrido et al. (2016) which uses generalized linear models (GLMs) that account for dependence between frequency and severity and simultaneously incorporate rating factors to capture policyholder heterogeneity. In addition, we quantify and explain the contribution of the variability of claims among policyholders through the use of random effects using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). We calibrated our model using a portfolio of auto insurance contracts from a Singapore insurer where we observed claim counts and amounts from policyholders for a period of six years. We compared our results with the dependent GLM considered by Garrido et al. (2016), Tweedie models, and the case of independence. The dependent GLMM shows statistical evidence of positive dependence between frequency and severity. Using validation procedures, we find that the results demonstrate a more superior model when random effects are considered within a GLMM 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 | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".