FREQUENTIST INFERENCE IN INSURANCE RATEMAKING MODELS ADJUSTING FOR MISREPRESENTATION
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it