Flexible extreme thresholds through generalised Bayesian model averaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insurance products frequently cover significant claims arising from a variety of sources. To model losses from these products accurately, actuarial models must account for high-severity claims. A widely used strategy is to apply a mixture model, fitting one distribution to losses below a given threshold and modeling excess losses using extreme value theory. However, selecting an appropriate threshold remains an open question with no universally agreed-upon solution. Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) provides a promising alternative by enabling the simultaneous consideration of multiple thresholds. In this paper, we show that an error integration BMA algorithm can effectively detect heterogeneous optimal thresholds that adapt to predictive variables through the combination of mixture models. This method enhances model accuracy by capturing the full loss distribution and lessening sensitivity to threshold choice. We validate the proposed approach using simulation studies and an application to an automobile claims dataset from a Canadian insurer. As a special case, we also study the homogeneous setting, where a single optimal threshold is selected, and compare it to automatic selection algorithms based on goodness-of-fit tests applied to an actuarial dataset.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".