Wishart‐gamma random effects models with applications to nonlife insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Random effects are particularly useful in insurance studies, to capture residual heterogeneity or to induce cross‐sectional and/or serial dependence, opening hence the door to many applications including experience rating and microreserving. However, their nonobservability often makes existing models computationally cumbersome in a multivariate context. In this paper, it is shown that the multivariate extension to the Gamma distribution based on Wishart distributions for random symmetric positive‐definite matrices (considering diagonal terms) is particularly tractable and convenient to model correlated random effects in multivariate frequency, severity and duration models. Three applications are discussed to demonstrate the versatility of the approach: (a) frequency‐based experience rating with several policies or guarantees per policyholder, (b) experience rating accounting for the correlation between claim frequency and severity components, and (c) joint modeling and forecasting of the time‐to‐payment and amount of payment in microlevel reserving, when both are subject to censoring.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".