FREQUENTIST INFERENCE IN INSURANCE RATEMAKING MODELS ADJUSTING FOR MISREPRESENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In insurance underwriting, misrepresentation represents the type of insurance fraud when an applicant purposely makes a false statement on a risk factor that may lower his or her cost of insurance. Under the insurance ratemaking context, we propose to use the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to perform maximum likelihood estimation of the regression effects and the prevalence of misrepresentation for the misrepresentation model proposed by Xia and Gustafson [(2016) The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 44, 198–218]. For applying the EM algorithm, the unobserved status of misrepresentation is treated as a latent variable in the complete-data likelihood function. We derive the iterative formulas for the EM algorithm and obtain the analytical form of the Fisher information matrix for frequentist inference on the parameters of interest for lognormal losses. We implement the algorithm and demonstrate that valid inference can be obtained on the risk effect despite the unobserved status of misrepresentation. Applying the proposed algorithm, we perform a loss severity analysis with the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. The analysis reveals not only the potential impact misrepresentation may have on the risk effect but also statistical evidence on the presence of misrepresentation in the self-reported insurance status.
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 | 0.051 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".