MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315786905 · doi:10.3390/risks11010020

Adversarial Artificial Intelligence in Insurance: From an Example to Some Potential Remedies

2023· article· en· W4315786905 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwritingAdversarial systemIntermediaryActuarial scienceBusinessRobustness (evolution)Taxonomy (biology)Financial servicesComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a tool that financial intermediaries and insurance companies use or are willing to use in almost all their activities. AI can have a positive impact on almost all aspects of the insurance value chain: pricing, underwriting, marketing, claims management, and after-sales services. While it is very important and useful, AI is not free of risks, including those related to its robustness against so-called adversarial attacks, which are conducted by external entities to misguide and defraud the AI algorithms. The paper is designed to review adversarial AI and to discuss its implications for the insurance sector. We give a taxonomy of adversarial attacks and present an original, fully fledged example of claims falsification in health insurance, as well as some remedies which are consistent with the current regulatory framework.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.259 · 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