Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique

Joyjit Roy; Samaresh Kumar Singh

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read An adversarial critic agent that challenges an LLM underwriter's draft decisions cut hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and raised decision accuracy from 92% to 96% across 500 expert-validated cases.

desk verdict A plausible, well-scoped engineering result undercut by an undocumented development/test split; the mechanism is not new, but the decision-negative framing and failure taxonomy are worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.13213 v2 pith:P5PPPFI7 submitted 2026-01-21 cs.AI cs.HCcs.LG

Joyjit Roy , Samaresh Kumar Singh This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.HCcs.LG

keywords AgenticAIcommercialinsuranceunderwritingadversarialself-critiquehallucinationreductionhuman-in-the-loopregulatedfailuremodetaxonomyLLMreliability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a second, skeptical LLM agent — an adversarial critic — can make AI-assisted commercial insurance underwriting reliable enough for a regulated setting without handing the machine final authority. The proposed system keeps the AI decision-negative: it analyzes submissions, proposes recommendations, and only humans can bind a policy. On 500 expert-validated cases, adding the critic cut hallucinated content from 11.3% of cases to 3.8% and improved decision accuracy from 92% to 96%, with the largest gains on complex cases. The paper also offers a taxonomy of remaining failure modes — missed edge cases, over-conservative declines, minor hallucinations, critic false alarms, and system faults — as a risk-management structure. The authors caution that these numbers are upper bounds from a curated dataset, not proof of production performance.

What carries the argument

The adversarial self-critique cycle: a critic agent receives the primary agent's draft decision and full reasoning chain, verifies factual claims against retrieved source documents and guideline text, flags unsupported assumptions and guideline violations, and may inject hypothetical scenarios; the primary agent then revises its answer once. The cycle is wrapped in a state-machine controller with guard conditions that enforce a decision-negative posture: tools are read-only, the output format has no field for binding actions, and a human authorization checkpoint gates the final record. This internal check-before-human-review is the mechanism carrying the paper's reliability gains.

What would settle it

A pre-registered re-evaluation on a fresh, held-out sample of production underwriting files — with no prompt changes after seeing results — that finds hallucination and accuracy rates no better than the agent-only configuration would refute the claim that the critic is the cause of the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a structured adversarial self-critique loop is a bounded safety mechanism that materially improves LLM reliability in high-stakes, regulated workflows. The primary agent produces a draft underwriting recommendation with its reasoning chain; a critic agent, prompted to be a skeptical internal reviewer, cross-checks every stated fact against the submission documents and the underwriting manual, lists discrepancies, and can raise hypothetical edge cases; the primary agent then revises its output once before the recommendation is shown to a human underwriter. The human retains sole authority to bind, modify, or decline. In this evaluation, the mechanism reduced false po

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 500 expert-validated cases fairly represent real underwriting work and were not inadvertently tuned during prompt or critique design; if that sampling or independence fails, the reported 11.3%→3.8% and 92%→96% gains may not reproduce in production.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deploying the critic reduces hallucination rate from 11.3% to 3.8% of cases and cuts major false-positive bindings by roughly 72%, lowering the costliest class of underwriting error.
Decision accuracy rises from 92% to 96%, with the clearest gains on complex cases (85% to 93%), so the mechanism is most valuable where human judgment is most strained.
The system delivers a 4–6× speedup over manual underwriting while preserving human authority, since all binding actions require explicit underwriter approval.
The failure-mode taxonomy gives insurers a shared vocabulary for monitoring the residual five failure classes in production, turning an abstract 'hallucination risk' into trackable categories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the critic uses the same base LLM as the primary agent, its blind spots are likely correlated with the agent's; a specialized critic fine-tuned on past underwriting reviews, or a panel of critics covering different perspectives, could catch a broader range of errors than the single-model loop.
The one-critique-round limit is a cost-quality trade-off; an adaptive policy that runs full critique only on low-confidence or complex submissions could recover part of the 33% latency overhead without sacrificing the accuracy gain.
The same adversarial-critique architecture could be tested in neighboring regulated domains — loan origination, medical prior authorization, or regulatory filing review — where a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop design is similarly mandated.
The paper's own caveat that metrics are upper bounds suggests a natural field test: measure whether the 96% accuracy holds on live submissions and whether it translates into improved loss ratios, not just agreement with expert judges.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is a well-scoped engineering study of a known mechanism (self-critique) applied to a real regulated domain, with an honest limitations section, but the central effect size is not fully trustworthy because the evaluation does not document a development/test split. The worry that the 500 cases might have tuned prompts or the critic is the right one.

The paper does several things well. The state machine with explicit authority boundaries is a clean way to make the human-in-the-loop guarantee testable. The failure-mode taxonomy (missed edge case, over-conservative, minor hallucination, critic false alarm, system/integration) is a practical contribution that other regulated-AI work can reuse. The reported McNemar p=0.003 for the accuracy gain is consistent with the numbers. The p=0.006 on the authority-boundary test is a little off from Fisher's exact (one-tailed gives about 0.005), but that is a rounding issue, not a red flag.

The soft spot is the evaluation methodology. The paper never says how 500 cases were sampled from the ~1,000-case Snorkel dataset, and never states that the 500 were held out during prompt or critic design. Section IV.B says expert rationales were not used to train or fine-tune, but prompt engineering is a form of adaptation. If the same 500 informed the few-shot examples or the critic's instructions, the 11.3% to 3.8% hallucination drop could be inflated. The limitations section acknowledges 'upper bounds,' but that is about external validity; the internal attribution to the critic is what needs a documented held-out set. Also, no code or data is released, which makes the numbers unverifiable.

A second, smaller issue: the critic and the agent use the same base model (Claude Sonnet 4.5). That is fine for an adversarial self-check, but it means the critique is not independent; the paper should say more about what the critic adds beyond a second pass of the same model.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee. The task is important, the architecture is sensible, and the claimed effect is likely in the right direction even if the magnitude is uncertain. I would recommend major revision requiring a documented development/test split, release of the evaluation protocol, and a clear statement on how the 500 cases were selected. For practitioners in regulated AI, this is worth reading. Would I cite it? Not until the eval is cleaned up.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a human-in-the-loop agentic system for commercial insurance underwriting in which a primary LLM agent (Claude Sonnet 4.5) produces recommendations that are then challenged by an adversarial critic agent before human review. The system is deliberately decision-negative: binding decisions require human authorization. The authors report, on 500 expert-validated cases from the Snorkel insurance dataset, that the adversarial critique mechanism raises decision accuracy from 92% to 96% and lowers hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8%, with additional gains in evidence completeness, contradiction detection, source traceability, and guideline compliance. They also propose a failure-mode taxonomy for decision-negative agents and report robustness, efficiency, and cost-benefit analyses.

Significance. If the central empirical claim holds, the paper would provide a useful, practical demonstration that an internal self-critique mechanism can improve reliability of LLM-based underwriting assistance in a regulated, human-in-the-loop workflow. The study has notable strengths: a moderately large expert-validated dataset, side-by-side comparison of three configurations, multiple quality metrics with confidence intervals, McNemar/Fisher significance testing, robustness probes, a cost model, and an explicit limitations section. The results are measurements rather than derivations, and the paper does not overclaim full autonomy. However, the internal validity of the headline improvement is not currently established because the manuscript does not demonstrate that the 500-case evaluation set was held out from the prompt/critique design process. That issue is load-bearing: without a documented development/test split, the reported 11.3%→3.8% and 92%→96% gains may reflect tuning to the evaluation set rather than a general property of adversarial self-critique. The contribution is therefore promising but conditional on additional experimental evidence.

major comments (3)

[§IV.A, §IV.B, §VI.A] The central claim rests on the 500-case evaluation, but the manuscript never states how these 500 cases were sampled from the ~1,000-case Snorkel dataset, nor whether any of these cases were used while designing prompts, few-shot examples, retrieval settings, or critic instructions. Section IV.B says expert rationales were not used to train, fine-tune, or adapt the AI system, but prompt engineering and few-shot example selection are forms of adaptation. As written, both Agent-Only and Agent+Critic are evaluated on cases that may have influenced the critic's design, confounding the causal attribution of the accuracy and hallucination improvements. The Limitations section (Section VIII) appropriately calls the metrics 'upper bounds' for production, but it does not address this internal-validity concern. The authors should document the exact sampling procedure and provide evidence of a froz
[Table V, §VI.G] The authority-boundary test reports 7/25 violations for Agent-Only versus 0/25 for Agent+Critic with p=0.006 from Fisher's exact test. For the 2×2 table with row totals 25 and 25, column totals 7 and 43, the one-tailed Fisher exact p is C(25,7)/C(50,7) ≈ 0.0048 (two-tailed ≈ 0.0096); the reported p is therefore numerically off. More substantively, the authority-boundary metric is tied to the system design — guard conditions and output schemas explicitly prohibit binding actions — so zero violations with the critic may reflect the guardrail implementation rather than the critique mechanism itself. The paper should clarify whether the boundary test was performed on the same 500 cases used for the other metrics and how the 25 boundary-test cases were selected.
[§VI.A, Table II, §V] The headline 'hallucination rate' is defined in Section V as 'ungrounded claims,' but Table II and Figure 5 report it as a percentage of cases containing any hallucinated content, and the severity classification (minor vs major) is based on expert review. The manuscript does not specify the unit of analysis (per case, per claim, per sentence), nor does it report inter-rater reliability for expert judgments of hallucination or severity. Since a 7.5-point reduction in hallucination rate is one of the two headline results, the authors should provide a precise definition, the annotation protocol, and agreement statistics. Without these, the reader cannot assess whether the observed drop is robust or an artifact of scoring criteria.

minor comments (5)

[§VI.C, Table VI] The 'formal taxonomy' is a set of empirically observed failure categories with estimated frequencies, not a formal or generative taxonomy. Consider calling it an 'empirical failure-mode taxonomy' to avoid overclaiming formality.
[Table VI, §VII] The phrase 'with no evidence of overfitting' in the risk-factor discussion is unsupported; the paper provides no analysis of calibration or performance on a held-out split. This should be removed or substantiated.
[§IV.D, Table II] McNemar p-values are reported without the underlying discordant-pair counts. Reporting the 2×2 discordance table (e.g., cases correct with critic but wrong without, and vice versa) would improve transparency and reader confidence.
[Throughout] Minor presentation issues: 'System-of-recordintegration' needs a space; 'F . Case Difficulty' has an extra space; alpha-level notation appears inconsistently as 'α' and 'alpha' in Section IV.D; some references use inconsistent date formats. These are cosmetic but should be cleaned.
[§IX] The Future Work section correctly notes that a specialized critic model trained on past underwriting reviews might outperform the current same-base-model critic. This admission is useful and could be moved earlier to temper the reader's expectation about 'independence' of the critic, since both roles use Claude Sonnet 4.5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are measurements on an external benchmark, not derivations from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—hallucination reduction from 11.3% to 3.8% and accuracy increase from 92% to 96%—are empirical measurements comparing Agent-Only and Agent+Critic configurations on an external, expert-validated Snorkel dataset, not outputs of a derivation that feeds fitted parameters back into the same equations. No self-citations are load-bearing; the references to prior critique methods (Constitutional AI, Critic-CoT) are external and used only as related work. The failure-mode taxonomy is explicitly described as 'developed from experimental observations,' so its frequencies are descriptive summaries of the same evaluation rather than predictions derived from an independent model. The main methodological concern—absence of a documented development/test split, which could allow prompt engineering to influence the reported numbers—is a threat to internal and external validity, not a circularity: the paper does not exhibit any step where a fitted value is renamed as a prediction or where a conclusion is assumed in its own input. Because there is no demonstrated self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of the Snorkel ground truth, on the stability of the Claude API, and on the expert coding of hallucinations. The only numbers chosen by hand are the sampling temperatures and the unstated retrieval configuration; no parameters were fitted to produce the headline comparison. The failure-mode taxonomy is derived from the same evaluation set, which makes the taxonomy's frequencies circular with the evaluation, but the accuracy/hallucination comparison itself is externally benchmarked against expert labels.

free parameters (2)

Sampling temperatures = 0.2 (agent), 0.0 (critic)
Chosen by hand (Sec. IV.C) for consistency; sensitivity to these values is not reported, yet the hallucination/accuracy comparison depends on them.
Retrieval top-k and embedding model = not reported
Sec. III.D describes vector search over the underwriting manual but does not report the number of retrieved passages or the embedding model, which affects what guideline text the agent sees.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Snorkel Multi-Turn Insurance Underwriting dataset is expert-validated and representative of commercial underwriting.
Sec. IV.A introduces the dataset as expert-validated; the representativeness is assumed, and the paper later concedes it is curated rather than production logs.
domain assumption Ground truth by expert consensus and senior adjudication is correct.
Sec. IV.B establishes ground truth through consensus; the accuracy metric assumes this is the reference standard.
domain assumption Claude Sonnet 4.5 API outputs are stable enough for paired statistical tests.
Sec. IV.E says the same model version was used with reset state, but API non-determinism is not measured; McNemar assumes paired binary outcomes from a stable process.
domain assumption Expert coders can reliably classify hallucinations and compliance slips.
Sec. IV.E has domain experts review and classify errors; inter-rater reliability is not reported.
standard math Wilson score intervals and McNemar's test assumptions are appropriate for the reported proportions.
Sec. IV.D cites Wilson and McNemar; the statistical error in Table V suggests this assumption is not met in at least one analysis.
domain assumption Underwriter labor cost ($50-60/hour) and API pricing ($3/M input, $15/M output) are valid for the cost-benefit calculation.
Sec. VI.I uses these figures; the labor-saving lower bound is arithmetically inconsistent (90 min at $50/hr is $75, not $60).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5PPPFI7

@misc{pith2026260213213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5PPPFI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.13213}
}

read the original abstract

Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability in regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable when human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. In this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13213 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** State machine workflow with guard conditions. The self-critique cycle allows one iteration before proceeding to decision. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Performance comparison across key metrics. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Error type breakdown across 500 test cases. False [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Decision accuracy by case complexity. The adversarial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Processing time comparison across systems. The agent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Failure mode distribution across 500 test cases. Critic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

How artificial intelligence is transform- ing the insurance underwriting process,

J. P. Pressley, “How artificial intelligence is transform- ing the insurance underwriting process,” BizTech Maga- zine, Mar. 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://biztechmagazine.com/article/2025/03/how-artificial-intelligence- transforming-insurance-underwriting-process

2025
[2]

Underwriter’s edge: Harnessing generative AI for optimal outcomes,

Deloitte, “Underwriter’s edge: Harnessing generative AI for optimal outcomes,” Deloitte Insights (Web page and PDF), 2025, accessed: 2026- 01-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/Industries/ financial-services/articles/generative-ai-insurance-underwriting.html

2025
[3]

Regulation (eu) 2024/1689 (artificial intelligence act),

European Union, “Regulation (eu) 2024/1689 (artificial intelligence act),” EUR-Lex, Jun. 2024, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

2024
[4]

Tracking the evolution of AI insurance regula- tion,

Fenwick & West LLP, “Tracking the evolution of AI insurance regula- tion,” Fenwick (web article), 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06

2025
[5]

A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,

L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin, and T. Liu, “A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023

arXiv 2023
[6]

Harnessing the power of LLMs in practice: A survey on ChatGPT and beyond,

J. Yang, H. Jin, R. Tang, X. Han, Q. Feng, H. Jiang, S. Zhong, B. Yin, and X. Hu, “Harnessing the power of LLMs in practice: A survey on ChatGPT and beyond,”ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1–32, 2024

2024
[7]

ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

2023
[8]

AI in insurance underwriting: Use cases and results from leading insurers,

Shift Technology, “AI in insurance underwriting: Use cases and results from leading insurers,” Shift Technology (web article), Jan. 2024, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.shift- technology.com/resources/reports-and-insights/underwriting-risk-and- its-impact-on-the-combined-ratio

2024

Show all 19 references

[9]

How an AI-powered underwriting workbench improves efficiency in risk assessment,

Decerto, “How an AI-powered underwriting workbench improves efficiency in risk assessment,” Decerto (blog post), Mar. 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.decerto.com/ post/how-an-ai-powered-underwriting-workbench-improves-efficiency- in-risk-assessment

2025
[10]

Underwriting rewritten,

Accenture, “Underwriting rewritten,” Accenture (research report page), 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https:// www.accenture.com/us-en/industries/insurance/insurance-operations

2025
[11]

Human in the loop AI validation for eCommerce catalogs,

TRANSFORM Solutions, “Human in the loop AI validation for eCommerce catalogs,” Case Study, 2025, accessed: 2025-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.transformsolution.com/case-studies/ human-in-the-loop

2025
[12]

Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback,

Y . Bai, S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldieet al., “Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022

2022 arXiv
[13]

Critic-cot: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via chain-of-thought critic,

X. Zheng, J. Lou, B. Cao, X. Wen, Y . Ji, H. Lin, Y . Lu, X. Han, D. Zhang, and L. Sun, “Critic-cot: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via chain-of-thought critic,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, 2025, pp. 1768–18...

2025
[14]

When can LLMs actually correct their own mistakes? a critical survey of self-correction of LLMs,

R. Kamoi, T. Goyal, J. C. Rodriguez, and M. Shridhar, “When can LLMs actually correct their own mistakes? a critical survey of self-correction of LLMs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01297, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Introducing Claude Sonnet 4.5,

Anthropic, “Introducing Claude Sonnet 4.5,” Anthropic News, Sep. 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https: //www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-4-5

2025
[16]

snorkelai/multi-turn-insurance-underwriting (dataset),

Snorkel AI, “snorkelai/multi-turn-insurance-underwriting (dataset),” Hugging Face Datasets, 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Avail- able: https://huggingface.co/datasets/snorkelai/Multi-Turn-Insurance- Underwriting

2025
[17]

Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference,

E. B. Wilson, “Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 22, no. 158, pp. 209–212, 1927

1927
[18]

Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages,

Q. McNemar, “Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages,”Psychometrika, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153–157, 1947

1947
[19]

Claude API pricing,

Anthropic, “Claude API pricing,” 2025, [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

How artificial intelligence is transform- ing the insurance underwriting process,

J. P. Pressley, “How artificial intelligence is transform- ing the insurance underwriting process,” BizTech Maga- zine, Mar. 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://biztechmagazine.com/article/2025/03/how-artificial-intelligence- transforming-insurance-underwriting-process

2025

[2] [2]

Underwriter’s edge: Harnessing generative AI for optimal outcomes,

Deloitte, “Underwriter’s edge: Harnessing generative AI for optimal outcomes,” Deloitte Insights (Web page and PDF), 2025, accessed: 2026- 01-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/Industries/ financial-services/articles/generative-ai-insurance-underwriting.html

2025

[3] [3]

Regulation (eu) 2024/1689 (artificial intelligence act),

European Union, “Regulation (eu) 2024/1689 (artificial intelligence act),” EUR-Lex, Jun. 2024, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

2024

[4] [4]

Tracking the evolution of AI insurance regula- tion,

Fenwick & West LLP, “Tracking the evolution of AI insurance regula- tion,” Fenwick (web article), 2025, accessed: 2026-01-06

2025

[5] [5]

A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,

L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin, and T. Liu, “A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Harnessing the power of LLMs in practice: A survey on ChatGPT and beyond,

J. Yang, H. Jin, R. Tang, X. Han, Q. Feng, H. Jiang, S. Zhong, B. Yin, and X. Hu, “Harnessing the power of LLMs in practice: A survey on ChatGPT and beyond,”ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1–32, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

2023

[8] [8]

AI in insurance underwriting: Use cases and results from leading insurers,

Shift Technology, “AI in insurance underwriting: Use cases and results from leading insurers,” Shift Technology (web article), Jan. 2024, accessed: 2026-01-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.shift- technology.com/resources/reports-and-insights/underwriting-risk-and- its-impact-on-the-combined-ratio

2024