Improving Explainability of Major Risk Factors in Artificial Neural Networks for Auto Insurance Rate Regulation
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
In insurance rate-making, the use of statistical machine learning techniques such as artificial neural networks (ANN) is an emerging approach, and many insurance companies have been using them for pricing. However, due to the complexity of model specification and its implementation, model explainability may be essential to meet insurance pricing transparency for rate regulation purposes. This requirement may imply the need for estimating or evaluating the variable importance when complicated models are used. Furthermore, from both rate-making and rate-regulation perspectives, it is critical to investigate the impact of major risk factors on the response variables, such as claim frequency or claim severity. In this work, we consider the modelling problems of how claim counts, claim amounts and average loss per claim are related to major risk factors. ANN models are applied to meet this goal, and variable importance is measured to improve the model’s explainability due to the models’ complex nature. The results obtained from different variable importance measurements are compared, and dominant risk factors are identified. The contribution of this work is in making advanced mathematical models possible for applications in auto insurance rate regulation. This study focuses on analyzing major risks only, but the proposed method can be applied to more general insurance pricing problems when additional risk factors are being considered. In addition, the proposed methodology is useful for other business applications where statistical machine learning techniques are used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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