MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136434901 · doi:10.1017/s1748499521000087

LRMoE.jl: a software package for insurance loss modelling using mixture of experts regression model

2021· article· en· W3136434901 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Actuarial Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCensoring (clinical trials)EconometricsFlexibility (engineering)SoftwareTruncation (statistics)Logistic regressionData miningInflation (cosmology)R packageStatisticsActuarial scienceMathematicsEconomicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper introduces a new julia package, LRMoE, a statistical software tailor-made for actuarial applications, which allows actuarial researchers and practitioners to model and analyse insurance loss frequencies and severities using the Logit-weighted Reduced Mixture-of-Experts (LRMoE) model. LRMoE offers several new distinctive features which are motivated by various actuarial applications and mostly cannot be achieved using existing packages for mixture models. Key features include a wider coverage on frequency and severity distributions and their zero inflation, the flexibility to vary classes of distributions across components, parameter estimation under data censoring and truncation and a collection of insurance ratemaking and reserving functions. The package also provides several model evaluation and visualisation functions to help users easily analyse the performance of the fitted model and interpret the model in insurance contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.150 · 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