MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214939547 · doi:10.3390/risks10030054

Approximation of Zero-Inflated Poisson Credibility Premium via Variational Bayes Approach

2022· article· en· W4214939547 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

VenueRisks · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityCredibility theoryPoisson distributionBayes' theoremEconometricsBayesian probabilityComputationComputer scienceZero-inflated modelInflation (cosmology)Approximate Bayesian computationZero (linguistics)Posterior probabilityActuarial scienceEconomicsPoisson regressionMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While both zero-inflation and the unobserved heterogeneity in risks are prevalent issues in modeling insurance claim counts, determination of Bayesian credibility premium of the claim counts with these features are often demanding due to high computational costs associated with a use of MCMC. This article explores a way to approximate credibility premium for claims frequency that follows a zero-inflated Poisson distribution via variational Bayes approach. Unlike many existing industry benchmarks, the proposed method enables insurance companies to capture both zero-inflation and unobserved heterogeneity of policyholders simultaneously with modest computation costs. A simulation study and an empirical analysis using the LGPIF dataset were conducted and it turned out that the proposed method outperforms many industry benchmarks in terms of prediction performances and computation time. Such results support the applicability of the proposed method in the posterior ratemaking practices.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.199 · 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