Nonparametric intercept regularization for insurance claim frequency regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a subgroup analysis for an actuarial problem, the goal is for the investigator to classify the policyholders into unique groups, where the claims experience within each group are made as homogenous as possible. In this paper, we illustrate how the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) approach for subgroup analysis can be modified so that it can be more easily incorporated into an insurance claims analysis. We present an approach to penalize adjacent coefficients only and show how the algorithm can be implemented for fast estimation of the parameters. We present three different cases of the model, depending on the level of dependence among the different coverage groups within the data. In addition, we provide an interpretation of the credibility problem using both random effects and fixed effects, where the fixed effects approach corresponds to the ADMM approach to subgroup analysis, while the random effects approach represents the classic Bayesian approach. In an empirical study, we demonstrate how these approaches can be applied to real data using the Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund data. Our results show that the presented approach to subgroup analysis could provide a classification of the policyholders that improves the prediction accuracy of the claim frequencies in case other classifying variables are unavailable in the data.
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 | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".