Modelling auto insurance Size-of-Loss distributions using Exponentiated Weibull distribution and de-grouping methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rate regulation plays an important role in the financial service of the auto insurance industry. Modelling the Size of Loss distributions, particularly the large loss distribution at the aggregate level, is a key component of rate regulation to produce a benchmark for the industry. However, traditionally actuarial practice is constructing the group-based Size of Loss with irregular intervals. The frequency values associated with each group are counted to form a frequency distribution. However, this approach is limited by lacking a parametric distribution that can capture the underlying randomness of the Size of Loss. In this work, we propose a de-grouping method based on the simulation of the uniform random variate, with and without constraint on knowing the average incurred loss per claim count. Using the de-grouping method, we simulate the individual observation based on the limited information available from the grouped Size of Loss. We have successfully identified the Exponentiated Weibull distribution as a good candidate as it outperforms other heavy-tailed distributions being considered. Our findings provide critical guidance and direction for the practical use of the proposed de-grouping method in auto insurance rate regulation practice and other fields in business and economics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".