Measuring and Mitigating Biases in Motor Insurance Pricing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The non-life insurance sector operates within a highly competitive and tightly regulated framework, confronting a pivotal juncture in the formulation of pricing strategies. Insurers are compelled to harness a range of statistical methodologies and available data to construct optimal pricing structures that align with the overarching corporate strategy while accommodating the dynamics of market competition. Given the fundamental societal role played by insurance, premium rates are subject to rigorous scrutiny by regulatory authorities. These rates must conform to principles of transparency, explainability, and ethical considerations. Consequently, the act of pricing transcends mere statistical calculations and carries the weight of strategic and societal factors. These multifaceted concerns may drive insurers to establish equitable premiums, taking into account various variables. For instance, regulations mandate the provision of equitable premiums, considering factors such as policyholder gender or mutualist group dynamics in accordance with respective corporate strategies. Age-based premium fairness is also mandated. In certain insurance domains, variables such as the presence of serious illnesses or disabilities are emerging as new dimensions for evaluating fairness. Regardless of the motivating factor prompting an insurer to adopt fairer pricing strategies for a specific variable, the insurer must possess the capability to define, measure, and ultimately mitigate any ethical biases inherent in its pricing practices while upholding standards of consistency and performance. This study seeks to provide a comprehensive set of tools for these endeavors and assess their effectiveness through practical application in the context of automobile insurance.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2023.
Builds on
19 of 44 references.
References · 19
- 2021Convex optimizationcited by 2,515
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 587
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2017A Convex Framework for Fair Regressioncited by 148
- 2021A Clarification of the Nuances in the Fairness Metrics Landscapecited by 98
- 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 93
- 2019FlipTest: Fairness Testing via Optimal Transportcited by 51
7 more
- 2021Transport-based Counterfactual Modelscited by 27
- 2020Review of Mathematical frameworks for Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 21
- 2023A Sequentially Fair Mechanism for Multiple Sensitive Attributescited by 9
- 2022A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learningcited by 7
- 2023Mitigating Discrimination in Insurance with Wasserstein Barycenterscited by 7
- 2017Two-stage Algorithm for Fairness-aware Machine Learningcited by 6
- 2022A Discussion of Discrimination and Fairness in Insurance Pricingcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.