MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971556193 · doi:10.1017/asb.2019.25

A CLASS OF MIXTURE OF EXPERTS MODELS FOR GENERAL INSURANCE: APPLICATION TO CORRELATED CLAIM FREQUENCIES

2019· article· en· W2971556193 on OpenAlexaff
Tsz Chai Fung, Andrei L. Badescu, X. Sheldon Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifiabilityComputer scienceInferenceClass (philosophy)Expectation–maximization algorithmData miningEconometricsLogitMultivariate statisticsData setLogistic regressionSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsStatisticsMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper focuses on the estimation and application aspects of the Erlang count logit-weighted reduced mixture of experts model (EC-LRMoE), which is a fully flexible multivariate insurance claim frequency regression model. We first prove the identifiability property of the proposed model to ensure that it is a suitable candidate for statistical inference. An expectation conditional maximization (ECM) algorithm is developed for efficient model calibrations. Three simulation studies are performed to examine the effectiveness of the proposed ECM algorithm and the versatility of the proposed model. The applicability of the EC-LRMoE is shown through fitting an European automobile insurance data set. Since the data set contains several complex features, we find it necessary to adopt such a flexible model. Apart from showing excellent fitting results, we are able to interpret the fitted model in an insurance perspective and to visualize the relationship between policyholders’ information and their risk level. Finally, we demonstrate how the fitted model may be useful for insurance ratemaking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207