Measuring Variable Importance in Generalized Linear Models for Modeling Size of Loss Distributions
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
Predictive modeling is a critical technique in many real-world applications, including auto insurance rate-making and the decision making of rate filings review for regulation purposes. It is also important in predicting financial and economic risk in business and economics. Unlike testing hypotheses in statistical inference, results obtained from predictive modeling serve as statistical evidence for the decision making of the underlying problem and discovering the functional relationship between the response variable and the predictors. As a result of this, the variable importance measures become an essential aspect of helping to better understand the contributions of predictors to the built model. In this work, we focus on the study of using generalized linear models (GLM) for the size of loss distributions. In addition, we address the problem of measuring the importance of the variables used in the GLM to further evaluate their potential impact on insurance pricing. In this regard, we propose to shift the focus from variable importance measures of factor levels to factors themselves and to develop variable importance measures for factors included in the model. Therefore, this work is exclusively for modeling with categorical variables as predictors. This work contributes to the further development of GLM modeling to make it even more practical due to this added value. This study also aims to provide benchmark estimates to allow for the regulation of insurance rates using GLM from the variable importance aspect.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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