Synthesizing Property & Casualty Ratemaking Datasets using Generative Adversarial Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to confidentiality issues, it can be difficult to access or share interesting datasets for methodological development in actuarial science or other fields where personal data are important. We show how to design three different types of generative adversarial networks (GANs) that can build a synthetic insurance dataset from a confidential original dataset. The goal is to obtain synthetic data that no longer contains sensitive information but still has the same structure as the original dataset and retains the multivariate relationships. In order to adequately model the specific characteristics of insurance data, we use GAN architectures adapted for multicategorical data: a Wassertein GAN with gradient penalty (MC-WGAN-GP), a conditional tabular GAN (CTGAN), and a Mixed Numerical and Categorical Differentially Private GAN (MNCDP-GAN). For transparency, the approaches are illustrated using a public dataset, the French motor third-party liability data. We compare the three different GANs on various aspects: ability to reproduce the original data structure and predictive models, privacy, and ease of use. We find that the MC-WGAN-GP synthesizes the best data, the CTGAN is the easiest to use, and the MNCDP-GAN guarantees differential privacy. This work was supported by an Individual Grant from the Casualty Actuarial Society. Address for Correspondence: hartman@stat.byu.edu
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".