Multivariate Bühlmann-Straub credibility model for claim reserving
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 One of the approaches that is used for claim reserving in insurance companies is credibility theory, which allows claim reserving by combining claim payment data with other information. In this paper, the Bühlmann-Straub credibility model is used. Furthermore, in general, claim reserving in a company is done by calculating the claim reserve in each line of business (LoB) in the company, then the total claim reserve for the company (aggregate reserve) is obtained by adding up the claim reserve in each LoB. Considering the possibility that there is correlation between the existing LoBs, the value of aggregate reserve can actually be less than the sum of the claim reserve in each of the existing LoB. Therefore, research on the claim reserving then evolves by considering claim payment data from various LoBs in a company, or also called claim reserving in multivariate context. In this paper, a research is conducted on the development of multivariate Bühlmann-Straub credibility model for claim reserving along with estimation for model’s parameters. The model is used to calculate claim reserve for three LoBs of insurance company in United State, based on the data of claim amount during the period of 2008-2017 that was published by Association of Insurance Commisioners of the United State. It appears that the error of multivariate Bühlmann-Straub credibility model is lower than the error of standard Bühlmann-Straub credibility model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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