Improving risk classification and ratemaking using mixture‐of‐experts models with random effects
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
Abstract In the underwriting and pricing of nonlife insurance products, it is essential for the insurer to utilize both policyholder information and claim history to ensure profitability and proper risk management. In this paper, we apply a flexible regression model with random effects, called the Mixed Logit‐weighted Reduced Mixture‐of‐Experts , which leverages both policyholder information and their claim history, to categorize policyholders into groups with similar risk profiles, and to determine a premium that accurately captures the unobserved risks. Estimates of model parameters and the posterior distribution of random effects can be obtained by a stochastic variational algorithm, which is numerically efficient and scalable to large insurance portfolios. Our proposed framework is shown to outperform the classical benchmark models (Logistic and Lognormal GL(M)M) in terms of goodness‐of‐fit to data, while offering intuitive and interpretable characterization of policyholders' risk profiles to adequately reflect their claim history.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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