mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Autocalibration and Tweedie-dominance for Insurance Pricing with Machine Learning

arXiv 2103.03635 ↗First posted 5 Mar 2021stat.ML cs.LG econ.EMcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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).

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2021.

Builds on

2 of 24 references.

References · 2

  1. 2015Of Quantiles and Expectiles: Consistent Scoring Functions, Choquet Representations, and Forecast Rankingscited by 28
  2. 2018Generic Conditions for Forecast Dominancecited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 6; 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.

18 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2022A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learningcited by 7
  2. 2023Isotonic Recalibration under a Low Signal-to-Noise Ratiocited by 7
  3. 2023Neural networks for insurance pricing with frequency and severity data: a benchmark study from data preprocessing to technical tariffcited by 7
  4. 2022Model selection with Gini indices under auto-calibrationcited by 6
  5. 2023Enhancing Actuarial Non-Life Pricing Models via Transformerscited by 6
  6. 2023Bayesian CART models for insurance claims frequencycited by 2
  7. 2023Insights From Insurance for Fair Machine Learningcited by 2
  8. 2022Churn modeling of life insurance policies via statistical and machine learning methods -- Analysis of important featurescited by 1
  9. 2024Bayesian CART models for aggregate claim modelingcited by 1
  10. 2024From Point to probabilistic gradient boosting for claim frequency and severity predictioncited by 1
  11. 2025Calibration Bands for Mean Estimates within the Exponential Dispersion Familycited by 1
  12. 2025On the use of case estimate and transactional payment data in neural networks for individual loss reservingcited by 1
6 more
  1. 2026Reinforcement Learning for Micro-Level Claims Reservingcited by 1
  2. 2023Telematics Combined Actuarial Neural Networks for Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Claim Count Datacited by 0
  3. 2025Explainable Boosting Machine for Predicting Claim Severity and Frequency in Car Insurancecited by 0
  4. 2025Tweedie Regression for Video Recommendation Systemcited by 0
  5. 2026Assessing model calibration with boosting treescited by 0
  6. 2026A Longitudinal Attribute-Conditioned Neural Network for Modeling Health-State Transition Probabilities in Temporally Irregular Data: The LANTERN Frameworkcited by 0