Exploring Industry-Level Fairness of Auto Insurance Premiums by Statistical Modeling of Automobile Rate and Classification Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of actuarial fairness in auto insurance has been an important issue in the decision making of rate regulation. Risk classification and estimating risk relativities through statistical modeling become essential to help achieve fairness in premium rates. However, because of minor adjustments to risk relativities allowed by regulation rules, the rates charged eventually may not align with the empirical risk relativities calculated from insurance loss data. Therefore, investigating the relationship between the premium rates and loss costs at different risk factor levels becomes important for studying insurance fairness, particularly from rate regulation perspectives. This work applies statistical models to rate and classification data from the automobile statistical plan to investigate the disparities between insurance premiums and loss costs. The focus is on major risk factors used in the rate regulation, as our goal is to address fairness at the industry level. Various statistical models have been constructed to validate the suitableness of the proposed methods that determine a fixed effect. The fixed effect caused by the disparity of loss cost and premium rates is estimated by those statistical models. Using Canadian data, we found that there are no significant excessive premiums charged at the industry level, but the disparity between loss cost and premiums is high for urban drivers at the industry level. This study will help better understand the extent of auto insurance fairness at the industry level across different insured groups characterized by risk factor levels. The proposed fixed-effect models can also reveal the overall average loss ratio, which can tell us the fairness at the industry level when compared to loss ratios by the regulation rules.
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 | 0.032 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".