IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2112.03075.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deep Quantile and Deep Composite Model Regression

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Fissler
  • Michael Merz
  • Mario V. Wuthrich

Abstract

A main difficulty in actuarial claim size modeling is that there is no simple off-the-shelf distribution that simultaneously provides a good distributional model for the main body and the tail of the data. In particular, covariates may have different effects for small and for large claim sizes. To cope with this problem, we introduce a deep composite regression model whose splicing point is given in terms of a quantile of the conditional claim size distribution rather than a constant. To facilitate M-estimation for such models, we introduce and characterize the class of strictly consistent scoring functions for the triplet consisting a quantile, as well as the lower and upper expected shortfall beyond that quantile. In a second step, this elicitability result is applied to fit deep neural network regression models. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach and its superiority over classical approaches on a real accident insurance data set.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Fissler & Michael Merz & Mario V. Wuthrich, 2021. "Deep Quantile and Deep Composite Model Regression," Papers 2112.03075, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2112.03075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.03075
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomson, William, 1979. "Eliciting production possibilities from a well-informed manager," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 360-380, June.
    2. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    3. Parodi, Pietro, 2020. "A Generalised Property Exposure Rating Framework That Incorporates Scale-Independent Losses And Maximum Possible Loss Uncertainty," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 513-553, May.
    4. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    5. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    6. Guillen, Montserrat & Bermúdez, Lluís & Pitarque, Albert, 2021. "Joint generalized quantile and conditional tail expectation regression for insurance risk analysis," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    8. Rafael M Frongillo & Ian A Kash, 2021. "Elicitation complexity of statistical properties [A characterization of scoring rules for linear properties]," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 108(4), pages 857-879.
    9. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    10. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    11. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Quantiles as optimal point forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 197-207, April.
    12. Guojun Gan & Emiliano A. Valdez, 2018. "Fat-Tailed Regression Modeling with Spliced Distributions," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 554-573, October.
    13. Tsz Chai Fung & Andrei L. Badescu & X. Sheldon Lin, 2021. "A New Class of Severity Regression Models with an Application to IBNR Prediction," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 206-231, April.
    14. Stefan Weber, 2006. "Distribution‐Invariant Risk Measures, Information, And Dynamic Consistency," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 419-441, April.
    15. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Quantiles as optimal point forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 197-207.
    16. Pigeon, Mathieu & Denuit, Michel, 2011. "Composite Lognormal-Pareto model with random threshold," LIDAM Reprints ISBA 2011020, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    17. Laudagé, Christian & Desmettre, Sascha & Wenzel, Jörg, 2019. "Severity modeling of extreme insurance claims for tariffication," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 77-92.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anthony Coache & Sebastian Jaimungal & 'Alvaro Cartea, 2022. "Conditionally Elicitable Dynamic Risk Measures for Deep Reinforcement Learning," Papers 2206.14666, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    2. Fissler, Tobias & Pesenti, Silvana M., 2023. "Sensitivity measures based on scoring functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1408-1423.
    3. Ahmed, Hanan, 2022. "Extreme value statistics using related variables," Other publications TiSEM 246f0f13-701c-4c0d-8e09-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fissler, Tobias & Merz, Michael & Wüthrich, Mario V., 2023. "Deep quantile and deep composite triplet regression," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 94-112.
    2. Tobias Fissler & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang & Linxiao Wei, 2024. "Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures," Papers 2404.14136, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    3. Timo Dimitriadis & Tobias Fissler & Johanna Ziegel, 2020. "The Efficiency Gap," Papers 2010.14146, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    4. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    5. Timo Dimitriadis & Tobias Fissler & Johanna Ziegel, 2022. "Characterizing M-estimators," Papers 2208.08108, arXiv.org.
    6. Bruzda, Joanna, 2019. "Quantile smoothing in supply chain and logistics forecasting," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 122-139.
    7. Gensler, André & Sick, Bernhard & Vogt, Stephan, 2018. "A review of uncertainty representations and metaverification of uncertainty assessment techniques for renewable energies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 352-379.
    8. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    9. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    10. Timo Dimitriadis & Yannick Hoga, 2023. "Regressions under Adverse Conditions," Papers 2311.13327, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    11. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    12. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    13. Fissler, Tobias & Pesenti, Silvana M., 2023. "Sensitivity measures based on scoring functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1408-1423.
    14. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    15. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    16. Ruben Loaiza‐Maya & Gael M. Martin & David T. Frazier, 2021. "Focused Bayesian prediction," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(5), pages 517-543, August.
    17. Martin, Gael M. & Loaiza-Maya, Rubén & Maneesoonthorn, Worapree & Frazier, David T. & Ramírez-Hassan, Andrés, 2022. "Optimal probabilistic forecasts: When do they work?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 384-406.
    18. Berrisch, Jonathan & Ziel, Florian, 2023. "CRPS learning," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 237(2).
    19. George Athanasopoulos & Nikolaos Kourentzes, 2021. "On the Evaluation of Hierarchical Forecasts," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 10/21, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    20. Sander Barendse, 2017. "Interquantile Expectation Regression," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-034/III, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2112.03075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.