Autocalibration and Tweedie-dominance for Insurance Pricing with Machine Learning
AI-generated Key Points
- Machine learning techniques like boosting and neural networks are effective for insurance pricing
- Ongoing debates exist regarding appropriate loss function and performance metrics for training these models
- Actuarial analysts struggle with the sum of fitted values differing significantly from observed totals
- Training models by minimizing deviance outside of the familiar Generalized Linear Model (GLM) can result in a lack of balance due to early stopping rule in gradient descent methods for model fitting
- Autocalibration is proposed as a remedy to address this issue, which corrects bias by adding an extra local GLM step to the analysis and ensures balance at both portfolio and local levels
- Tree-based boosting models and neural networks trained to minimize deviance generally underestimate total claims significantly, breaking total balance even on the training data set
- Using deviance as an objective function without global balance constraints may lead to dubious candidate premiums because they can deviate significantly from observed losses when totals are not kept
- The study questions the relevance of using deviance as an objective function without global balance constraints for insurance pricing with machine learning techniques
- The convex order is suggested as a natural tool to compare competing models and put new light on diagnostic graphs and associated metrics
- Actuarial risk classification is established with the help of averaging observed losses to ensure balance at both portfolio and local levels.
Authors: Michel Denuit, Arthur Charpentier, Julien Trufin
Abstract: Boosting techniques and neural networks are particularly effective machine learning methods for insurance pricing. Often in practice, there are nevertheless endless debates about the choice of the right loss function to be used to train the machine learning model, as well as about the appropriate metric to assess the performances of competing models. Also, the sum of fitted values can depart from the observed totals to a large extent and this often confuses actuarial analysts. The lack of balance inherent to training models by minimizing deviance outside the familiar GLM with canonical link setting has been empirically documented in W\"uthrich (2019, 2020) who attributes it to the early stopping rule in gradient descent methods for model fitting. The present paper aims to further study this phenomenon when learning proceeds by minimizing Tweedie deviance. It is shown that minimizing deviance involves a trade-off between the integral of weighted differences of lower partial moments and the bias measured on a specific scale. Autocalibration is then proposed as a remedy. This new method to correct for bias adds an extra local GLM step to the analysis. Theoretically, it is shown that it implements the autocalibration concept in pure premium calculation and ensures that balance also holds on a local scale, not only at portfolio level as with existing bias-correction techniques. The convex order appears to be the natural tool to compare competing models, putting a new light on the diagnostic graphs and associated metrics proposed by Denuit et al. (2019).
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.