REVIEW 1 cited by
Model Comparison and Calibration Assessment: User Guide for Consistent Scoring Functions in Machine Learning and Actuarial Practice
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
One of the main tasks of actuaries and data scientists is to build good predictive models for certain phenomena such as the claim size or the number of claims in insurance. These models ideally exploit given feature information to enhance the accuracy of prediction. This user guide revisits and clarifies statistical techniques to assess the calibration or adequacy of a model on the one hand, and to compare and rank different models on the other hand. In doing so, it emphasises the importance of specifying the prediction target functional at hand a priori (e.g. the mean or a quantile) and of choosing the scoring function in model comparison in line with this target functional. Guidance for the practical choice of the scoring function is provided. Striving to bridge the gap between science and daily practice in application, it focuses mainly on the pedagogical presentation of existing results and of best practice. The results are accompanied and illustrated by two real data case studies on workers' compensation and customer churn.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
From Point to probabilistic gradient boosting for claim frequency and severity prediction
A benchmark of ten gradient boosting algorithms on five insurance datasets shows probabilistic versions can improve fit without losing predictive accuracy, with LightGBM and XGBoostLSS fastest.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.