MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003902258 · doi:10.3934/bdia.2021005

Aggregate loss model with Poisson-Tweedie frequency

2021· article· en· W3003902258 on OpenAlexaff
S. Chen, Z. Wang, Mary Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Data and Information Analytics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson distributionPercentileEconometricsAggregate (composite)ReinsuranceCompound Poisson distributionDistribution (mathematics)Zero-inflated modelSensitivity (control systems)StatisticsPoisson regressionMathematicsComputer scienceEconomicsPopulationActuarial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aggregate loss models are used by insurers to make operational decisions, set insurance premiums, optimize reinsurance and manage risk. The aggregate loss is the summation of all random losses that occurred in a period, and it is a function of both the loss severity and the loss frequency. The need for a flexible model in fitting severity has been well studied in the literature. We extend this work by introducing the Poisson-Tweedie distribution family for the frequency distribution. The Poisson-Tweedie distribution family contains many of the commonly used distributions for modelling loss frequency, thus making loss frequency fitting more flexible and reducing the chance of model misspecification. Using simulation, we show that the sensitivity of percentile based risk measures to different specifications of the frequency distribution. We then apply our proposed model to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims data to demonstrate modelling capacity of the Poisson-Tweedie distribution.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBig Data and Information AnalyticsSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207