Bonus-Malus Scale models: creating artificial past claims history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent papers, Bonus-Malus Scales (BMS) estimated using data have been considered as an alternative to longitudinal data and hierarchical data approaches to model the dependence between different contracts for the same insured. Those papers, however, did not discuss in detail how to construct and understand BMS models, and many of the BMS’s basic properties were not discussed. The first objective of this paper is to correct this situation by explaining the logic behind BMS models and by describing those properties. More particularly, we will explain how BMS models are linked with simple count regression models that have covariates associated with the past claims experience. This study could help actuaries to understand how and why they should use BMS models for experience rating. The second objective of this paper is to create artificial past claims history for each insured. This is done by combining recent panel data theory with BMS models. We show that this addition significantly improves the prediction capacity of the BMS and provides a temporary solution for insurers who do not have enough historical data. We apply the BMS model to real data from a major Canadian insurance company. Results are analysed deeply to identify specific aspects of the BMS 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".