694 lines
23 KiB
Python
694 lines
23 KiB
Python
|
# Authors: The scikit-learn developers
|
||
|
# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
|
||
|
"""
|
||
|
======================================
|
||
|
Tweedie regression on insurance claims
|
||
|
======================================
|
||
|
|
||
|
This example illustrates the use of Poisson, Gamma and Tweedie regression on
|
||
|
the `French Motor Third-Party Liability Claims dataset
|
||
|
<https://www.openml.org/d/41214>`_, and is inspired by an R tutorial [1]_.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In this dataset, each sample corresponds to an insurance policy, i.e. a
|
||
|
contract within an insurance company and an individual (policyholder).
|
||
|
Available features include driver age, vehicle age, vehicle power, etc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A few definitions: a *claim* is the request made by a policyholder to the
|
||
|
insurer to compensate for a loss covered by the insurance. The *claim amount*
|
||
|
is the amount of money that the insurer must pay. The *exposure* is the
|
||
|
duration of the insurance coverage of a given policy, in years.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Here our goal is to predict the expected
|
||
|
value, i.e. the mean, of the total claim amount per exposure unit also
|
||
|
referred to as the pure premium.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are several possibilities to do that, two of which are:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. Model the number of claims with a Poisson distribution, and the average
|
||
|
claim amount per claim, also known as severity, as a Gamma distribution
|
||
|
and multiply the predictions of both in order to get the total claim
|
||
|
amount.
|
||
|
2. Model the total claim amount per exposure directly, typically with a Tweedie
|
||
|
distribution of Tweedie power :math:`p \\in (1, 2)`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In this example we will illustrate both approaches. We start by defining a few
|
||
|
helper functions for loading the data and visualizing results.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. [1] A. Noll, R. Salzmann and M.V. Wuthrich, Case Study: French Motor
|
||
|
Third-Party Liability Claims (November 8, 2018). `doi:10.2139/ssrn.3164764
|
||
|
<https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3164764>`_
|
||
|
"""
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
|
||
|
from functools import partial
|
||
|
|
||
|
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
|
||
|
import numpy as np
|
||
|
import pandas as pd
|
||
|
|
||
|
from sklearn.datasets import fetch_openml
|
||
|
from sklearn.metrics import (
|
||
|
mean_absolute_error,
|
||
|
mean_squared_error,
|
||
|
mean_tweedie_deviance,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
def load_mtpl2(n_samples=None):
|
||
|
"""Fetch the French Motor Third-Party Liability Claims dataset.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Parameters
|
||
|
----------
|
||
|
n_samples: int, default=None
|
||
|
number of samples to select (for faster run time). Full dataset has
|
||
|
678013 samples.
|
||
|
"""
|
||
|
# freMTPL2freq dataset from https://www.openml.org/d/41214
|
||
|
df_freq = fetch_openml(data_id=41214, as_frame=True).data
|
||
|
df_freq["IDpol"] = df_freq["IDpol"].astype(int)
|
||
|
df_freq.set_index("IDpol", inplace=True)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# freMTPL2sev dataset from https://www.openml.org/d/41215
|
||
|
df_sev = fetch_openml(data_id=41215, as_frame=True).data
|
||
|
|
||
|
# sum ClaimAmount over identical IDs
|
||
|
df_sev = df_sev.groupby("IDpol").sum()
|
||
|
|
||
|
df = df_freq.join(df_sev, how="left")
|
||
|
df["ClaimAmount"] = df["ClaimAmount"].fillna(0)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# unquote string fields
|
||
|
for column_name in df.columns[df.dtypes.values == object]:
|
||
|
df[column_name] = df[column_name].str.strip("'")
|
||
|
return df.iloc[:n_samples]
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
def plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df,
|
||
|
feature,
|
||
|
weight,
|
||
|
observed,
|
||
|
predicted,
|
||
|
y_label=None,
|
||
|
title=None,
|
||
|
ax=None,
|
||
|
fill_legend=False,
|
||
|
):
|
||
|
"""Plot observed and predicted - aggregated per feature level.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Parameters
|
||
|
----------
|
||
|
df : DataFrame
|
||
|
input data
|
||
|
feature: str
|
||
|
a column name of df for the feature to be plotted
|
||
|
weight : str
|
||
|
column name of df with the values of weights or exposure
|
||
|
observed : str
|
||
|
a column name of df with the observed target
|
||
|
predicted : DataFrame
|
||
|
a dataframe, with the same index as df, with the predicted target
|
||
|
fill_legend : bool, default=False
|
||
|
whether to show fill_between legend
|
||
|
"""
|
||
|
# aggregate observed and predicted variables by feature level
|
||
|
df_ = df.loc[:, [feature, weight]].copy()
|
||
|
df_["observed"] = df[observed] * df[weight]
|
||
|
df_["predicted"] = predicted * df[weight]
|
||
|
df_ = (
|
||
|
df_.groupby([feature])[[weight, "observed", "predicted"]]
|
||
|
.sum()
|
||
|
.assign(observed=lambda x: x["observed"] / x[weight])
|
||
|
.assign(predicted=lambda x: x["predicted"] / x[weight])
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
ax = df_.loc[:, ["observed", "predicted"]].plot(style=".", ax=ax)
|
||
|
y_max = df_.loc[:, ["observed", "predicted"]].values.max() * 0.8
|
||
|
p2 = ax.fill_between(
|
||
|
df_.index,
|
||
|
0,
|
||
|
y_max * df_[weight] / df_[weight].values.max(),
|
||
|
color="g",
|
||
|
alpha=0.1,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
if fill_legend:
|
||
|
ax.legend([p2], ["{} distribution".format(feature)])
|
||
|
ax.set(
|
||
|
ylabel=y_label if y_label is not None else None,
|
||
|
title=title if title is not None else "Train: Observed vs Predicted",
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
def score_estimator(
|
||
|
estimator,
|
||
|
X_train,
|
||
|
X_test,
|
||
|
df_train,
|
||
|
df_test,
|
||
|
target,
|
||
|
weights,
|
||
|
tweedie_powers=None,
|
||
|
):
|
||
|
"""Evaluate an estimator on train and test sets with different metrics"""
|
||
|
|
||
|
metrics = [
|
||
|
("D² explained", None), # Use default scorer if it exists
|
||
|
("mean abs. error", mean_absolute_error),
|
||
|
("mean squared error", mean_squared_error),
|
||
|
]
|
||
|
if tweedie_powers:
|
||
|
metrics += [
|
||
|
(
|
||
|
"mean Tweedie dev p={:.4f}".format(power),
|
||
|
partial(mean_tweedie_deviance, power=power),
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
for power in tweedie_powers
|
||
|
]
|
||
|
|
||
|
res = []
|
||
|
for subset_label, X, df in [
|
||
|
("train", X_train, df_train),
|
||
|
("test", X_test, df_test),
|
||
|
]:
|
||
|
y, _weights = df[target], df[weights]
|
||
|
for score_label, metric in metrics:
|
||
|
if isinstance(estimator, tuple) and len(estimator) == 2:
|
||
|
# Score the model consisting of the product of frequency and
|
||
|
# severity models.
|
||
|
est_freq, est_sev = estimator
|
||
|
y_pred = est_freq.predict(X) * est_sev.predict(X)
|
||
|
else:
|
||
|
y_pred = estimator.predict(X)
|
||
|
|
||
|
if metric is None:
|
||
|
if not hasattr(estimator, "score"):
|
||
|
continue
|
||
|
score = estimator.score(X, y, sample_weight=_weights)
|
||
|
else:
|
||
|
score = metric(y, y_pred, sample_weight=_weights)
|
||
|
|
||
|
res.append({"subset": subset_label, "metric": score_label, "score": score})
|
||
|
|
||
|
res = (
|
||
|
pd.DataFrame(res)
|
||
|
.set_index(["metric", "subset"])
|
||
|
.score.unstack(-1)
|
||
|
.round(4)
|
||
|
.loc[:, ["train", "test"]]
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
return res
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
# Loading datasets, basic feature extraction and target definitions
|
||
|
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# We construct the freMTPL2 dataset by joining the freMTPL2freq table,
|
||
|
# containing the number of claims (``ClaimNb``), with the freMTPL2sev table,
|
||
|
# containing the claim amount (``ClaimAmount``) for the same policy ids
|
||
|
# (``IDpol``).
|
||
|
from sklearn.compose import ColumnTransformer
|
||
|
from sklearn.pipeline import make_pipeline
|
||
|
from sklearn.preprocessing import (
|
||
|
FunctionTransformer,
|
||
|
KBinsDiscretizer,
|
||
|
OneHotEncoder,
|
||
|
StandardScaler,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
df = load_mtpl2()
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
# Correct for unreasonable observations (that might be data error)
|
||
|
# and a few exceptionally large claim amounts
|
||
|
df["ClaimNb"] = df["ClaimNb"].clip(upper=4)
|
||
|
df["Exposure"] = df["Exposure"].clip(upper=1)
|
||
|
df["ClaimAmount"] = df["ClaimAmount"].clip(upper=200000)
|
||
|
# If the claim amount is 0, then we do not count it as a claim. The loss function
|
||
|
# used by the severity model needs strictly positive claim amounts. This way
|
||
|
# frequency and severity are more consistent with each other.
|
||
|
df.loc[(df["ClaimAmount"] == 0) & (df["ClaimNb"] >= 1), "ClaimNb"] = 0
|
||
|
|
||
|
log_scale_transformer = make_pipeline(
|
||
|
FunctionTransformer(func=np.log), StandardScaler()
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
column_trans = ColumnTransformer(
|
||
|
[
|
||
|
(
|
||
|
"binned_numeric",
|
||
|
KBinsDiscretizer(n_bins=10, random_state=0),
|
||
|
["VehAge", "DrivAge"],
|
||
|
),
|
||
|
(
|
||
|
"onehot_categorical",
|
||
|
OneHotEncoder(),
|
||
|
["VehBrand", "VehPower", "VehGas", "Region", "Area"],
|
||
|
),
|
||
|
("passthrough_numeric", "passthrough", ["BonusMalus"]),
|
||
|
("log_scaled_numeric", log_scale_transformer, ["Density"]),
|
||
|
],
|
||
|
remainder="drop",
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
X = column_trans.fit_transform(df)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# Insurances companies are interested in modeling the Pure Premium, that is
|
||
|
# the expected total claim amount per unit of exposure for each policyholder
|
||
|
# in their portfolio:
|
||
|
df["PurePremium"] = df["ClaimAmount"] / df["Exposure"]
|
||
|
|
||
|
# This can be indirectly approximated by a 2-step modeling: the product of the
|
||
|
# Frequency times the average claim amount per claim:
|
||
|
df["Frequency"] = df["ClaimNb"] / df["Exposure"]
|
||
|
df["AvgClaimAmount"] = df["ClaimAmount"] / np.fmax(df["ClaimNb"], 1)
|
||
|
|
||
|
with pd.option_context("display.max_columns", 15):
|
||
|
print(df[df.ClaimAmount > 0].head())
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Frequency model -- Poisson distribution
|
||
|
# ---------------------------------------
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# The number of claims (``ClaimNb``) is a positive integer (0 included).
|
||
|
# Thus, this target can be modelled by a Poisson distribution.
|
||
|
# It is then assumed to be the number of discrete events occurring with a
|
||
|
# constant rate in a given time interval (``Exposure``, in units of years).
|
||
|
# Here we model the frequency ``y = ClaimNb / Exposure``, which is still a
|
||
|
# (scaled) Poisson distribution, and use ``Exposure`` as `sample_weight`.
|
||
|
from sklearn.linear_model import PoissonRegressor
|
||
|
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
|
||
|
|
||
|
df_train, df_test, X_train, X_test = train_test_split(df, X, random_state=0)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Let us keep in mind that despite the seemingly large number of data points in
|
||
|
# this dataset, the number of evaluation points where the claim amount is
|
||
|
# non-zero is quite small:
|
||
|
len(df_test)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
len(df_test[df_test["ClaimAmount"] > 0])
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# As a consequence, we expect a significant variability in our
|
||
|
# evaluation upon random resampling of the train test split.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# The parameters of the model are estimated by minimizing the Poisson deviance
|
||
|
# on the training set via a Newton solver. Some of the features are collinear
|
||
|
# (e.g. because we did not drop any categorical level in the `OneHotEncoder`),
|
||
|
# we use a weak L2 penalization to avoid numerical issues.
|
||
|
glm_freq = PoissonRegressor(alpha=1e-4, solver="newton-cholesky")
|
||
|
glm_freq.fit(X_train, df_train["Frequency"], sample_weight=df_train["Exposure"])
|
||
|
|
||
|
scores = score_estimator(
|
||
|
glm_freq,
|
||
|
X_train,
|
||
|
X_test,
|
||
|
df_train,
|
||
|
df_test,
|
||
|
target="Frequency",
|
||
|
weights="Exposure",
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print("Evaluation of PoissonRegressor on target Frequency")
|
||
|
print(scores)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Note that the score measured on the test set is surprisingly better than on
|
||
|
# the training set. This might be specific to this random train-test split.
|
||
|
# Proper cross-validation could help us to assess the sampling variability of
|
||
|
# these results.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# We can visually compare observed and predicted values, aggregated by the
|
||
|
# drivers age (``DrivAge``), vehicle age (``VehAge``) and the insurance
|
||
|
# bonus/malus (``BonusMalus``).
|
||
|
|
||
|
fig, ax = plt.subplots(ncols=2, nrows=2, figsize=(16, 8))
|
||
|
fig.subplots_adjust(hspace=0.3, wspace=0.2)
|
||
|
|
||
|
plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df=df_train,
|
||
|
feature="DrivAge",
|
||
|
weight="Exposure",
|
||
|
observed="Frequency",
|
||
|
predicted=glm_freq.predict(X_train),
|
||
|
y_label="Claim Frequency",
|
||
|
title="train data",
|
||
|
ax=ax[0, 0],
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df=df_test,
|
||
|
feature="DrivAge",
|
||
|
weight="Exposure",
|
||
|
observed="Frequency",
|
||
|
predicted=glm_freq.predict(X_test),
|
||
|
y_label="Claim Frequency",
|
||
|
title="test data",
|
||
|
ax=ax[0, 1],
|
||
|
fill_legend=True,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df=df_test,
|
||
|
feature="VehAge",
|
||
|
weight="Exposure",
|
||
|
observed="Frequency",
|
||
|
predicted=glm_freq.predict(X_test),
|
||
|
y_label="Claim Frequency",
|
||
|
title="test data",
|
||
|
ax=ax[1, 0],
|
||
|
fill_legend=True,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df=df_test,
|
||
|
feature="BonusMalus",
|
||
|
weight="Exposure",
|
||
|
observed="Frequency",
|
||
|
predicted=glm_freq.predict(X_test),
|
||
|
y_label="Claim Frequency",
|
||
|
title="test data",
|
||
|
ax=ax[1, 1],
|
||
|
fill_legend=True,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
# According to the observed data, the frequency of accidents is higher for
|
||
|
# drivers younger than 30 years old, and is positively correlated with the
|
||
|
# `BonusMalus` variable. Our model is able to mostly correctly model this
|
||
|
# behaviour.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Severity Model - Gamma distribution
|
||
|
# ------------------------------------
|
||
|
# The mean claim amount or severity (`AvgClaimAmount`) can be empirically
|
||
|
# shown to follow approximately a Gamma distribution. We fit a GLM model for
|
||
|
# the severity with the same features as the frequency model.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Note:
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# - We filter out ``ClaimAmount == 0`` as the Gamma distribution has support
|
||
|
# on :math:`(0, \infty)`, not :math:`[0, \infty)`.
|
||
|
# - We use ``ClaimNb`` as `sample_weight` to account for policies that contain
|
||
|
# more than one claim.
|
||
|
from sklearn.linear_model import GammaRegressor
|
||
|
|
||
|
mask_train = df_train["ClaimAmount"] > 0
|
||
|
mask_test = df_test["ClaimAmount"] > 0
|
||
|
|
||
|
glm_sev = GammaRegressor(alpha=10.0, solver="newton-cholesky")
|
||
|
|
||
|
glm_sev.fit(
|
||
|
X_train[mask_train.values],
|
||
|
df_train.loc[mask_train, "AvgClaimAmount"],
|
||
|
sample_weight=df_train.loc[mask_train, "ClaimNb"],
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
scores = score_estimator(
|
||
|
glm_sev,
|
||
|
X_train[mask_train.values],
|
||
|
X_test[mask_test.values],
|
||
|
df_train[mask_train],
|
||
|
df_test[mask_test],
|
||
|
target="AvgClaimAmount",
|
||
|
weights="ClaimNb",
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print("Evaluation of GammaRegressor on target AvgClaimAmount")
|
||
|
print(scores)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Those values of the metrics are not necessarily easy to interpret. It can be
|
||
|
# insightful to compare them with a model that does not use any input
|
||
|
# features and always predicts a constant value, i.e. the average claim
|
||
|
# amount, in the same setting:
|
||
|
|
||
|
from sklearn.dummy import DummyRegressor
|
||
|
|
||
|
dummy_sev = DummyRegressor(strategy="mean")
|
||
|
dummy_sev.fit(
|
||
|
X_train[mask_train.values],
|
||
|
df_train.loc[mask_train, "AvgClaimAmount"],
|
||
|
sample_weight=df_train.loc[mask_train, "ClaimNb"],
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
scores = score_estimator(
|
||
|
dummy_sev,
|
||
|
X_train[mask_train.values],
|
||
|
X_test[mask_test.values],
|
||
|
df_train[mask_train],
|
||
|
df_test[mask_test],
|
||
|
target="AvgClaimAmount",
|
||
|
weights="ClaimNb",
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print("Evaluation of a mean predictor on target AvgClaimAmount")
|
||
|
print(scores)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# We conclude that the claim amount is very challenging to predict. Still, the
|
||
|
# :class:`~sklearn.linear_model.GammaRegressor` is able to leverage some
|
||
|
# information from the input features to slightly improve upon the mean
|
||
|
# baseline in terms of D².
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Note that the resulting model is the average claim amount per claim. As such,
|
||
|
# it is conditional on having at least one claim, and cannot be used to predict
|
||
|
# the average claim amount per policy. For this, it needs to be combined with
|
||
|
# a claims frequency model.
|
||
|
|
||
|
print(
|
||
|
"Mean AvgClaim Amount per policy: %.2f "
|
||
|
% df_train["AvgClaimAmount"].mean()
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print(
|
||
|
"Mean AvgClaim Amount | NbClaim > 0: %.2f"
|
||
|
% df_train["AvgClaimAmount"][df_train["AvgClaimAmount"] > 0].mean()
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print(
|
||
|
"Predicted Mean AvgClaim Amount | NbClaim > 0: %.2f"
|
||
|
% glm_sev.predict(X_train).mean()
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print(
|
||
|
"Predicted Mean AvgClaim Amount (dummy) | NbClaim > 0: %.2f"
|
||
|
% dummy_sev.predict(X_train).mean()
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
# We can visually compare observed and predicted values, aggregated for
|
||
|
# the drivers age (``DrivAge``).
|
||
|
|
||
|
fig, ax = plt.subplots(ncols=1, nrows=2, figsize=(16, 6))
|
||
|
|
||
|
plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df=df_train.loc[mask_train],
|
||
|
feature="DrivAge",
|
||
|
weight="Exposure",
|
||
|
observed="AvgClaimAmount",
|
||
|
predicted=glm_sev.predict(X_train[mask_train.values]),
|
||
|
y_label="Average Claim Severity",
|
||
|
title="train data",
|
||
|
ax=ax[0],
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
plot_obs_pred(
|
||
|
df=df_test.loc[mask_test],
|
||
|
feature="DrivAge",
|
||
|
weight="Exposure",
|
||
|
observed="AvgClaimAmount",
|
||
|
predicted=glm_sev.predict(X_test[mask_test.values]),
|
||
|
y_label="Average Claim Severity",
|
||
|
title="test data",
|
||
|
ax=ax[1],
|
||
|
fill_legend=True,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
plt.tight_layout()
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
# Overall, the drivers age (``DrivAge``) has a weak impact on the claim
|
||
|
# severity, both in observed and predicted data.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Pure Premium Modeling via a Product Model vs single TweedieRegressor
|
||
|
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
# As mentioned in the introduction, the total claim amount per unit of
|
||
|
# exposure can be modeled as the product of the prediction of the
|
||
|
# frequency model by the prediction of the severity model.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Alternatively, one can directly model the total loss with a unique
|
||
|
# Compound Poisson Gamma generalized linear model (with a log link function).
|
||
|
# This model is a special case of the Tweedie GLM with a "power" parameter
|
||
|
# :math:`p \in (1, 2)`. Here, we fix apriori the `power` parameter of the
|
||
|
# Tweedie model to some arbitrary value (1.9) in the valid range. Ideally one
|
||
|
# would select this value via grid-search by minimizing the negative
|
||
|
# log-likelihood of the Tweedie model, but unfortunately the current
|
||
|
# implementation does not allow for this (yet).
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# We will compare the performance of both approaches.
|
||
|
# To quantify the performance of both models, one can compute
|
||
|
# the mean deviance of the train and test data assuming a Compound
|
||
|
# Poisson-Gamma distribution of the total claim amount. This is equivalent to
|
||
|
# a Tweedie distribution with a `power` parameter between 1 and 2.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# The :func:`sklearn.metrics.mean_tweedie_deviance` depends on a `power`
|
||
|
# parameter. As we do not know the true value of the `power` parameter, we here
|
||
|
# compute the mean deviances for a grid of possible values, and compare the
|
||
|
# models side by side, i.e. we compare them at identical values of `power`.
|
||
|
# Ideally, we hope that one model will be consistently better than the other,
|
||
|
# regardless of `power`.
|
||
|
from sklearn.linear_model import TweedieRegressor
|
||
|
|
||
|
glm_pure_premium = TweedieRegressor(power=1.9, alpha=0.1, solver="newton-cholesky")
|
||
|
glm_pure_premium.fit(
|
||
|
X_train, df_train["PurePremium"], sample_weight=df_train["Exposure"]
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
tweedie_powers = [1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.99, 1.999, 1.9999]
|
||
|
|
||
|
scores_product_model = score_estimator(
|
||
|
(glm_freq, glm_sev),
|
||
|
X_train,
|
||
|
X_test,
|
||
|
df_train,
|
||
|
df_test,
|
||
|
target="PurePremium",
|
||
|
weights="Exposure",
|
||
|
tweedie_powers=tweedie_powers,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
scores_glm_pure_premium = score_estimator(
|
||
|
glm_pure_premium,
|
||
|
X_train,
|
||
|
X_test,
|
||
|
df_train,
|
||
|
df_test,
|
||
|
target="PurePremium",
|
||
|
weights="Exposure",
|
||
|
tweedie_powers=tweedie_powers,
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
scores = pd.concat(
|
||
|
[scores_product_model, scores_glm_pure_premium],
|
||
|
axis=1,
|
||
|
sort=True,
|
||
|
keys=("Product Model", "TweedieRegressor"),
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
print("Evaluation of the Product Model and the Tweedie Regressor on target PurePremium")
|
||
|
with pd.option_context("display.expand_frame_repr", False):
|
||
|
print(scores)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
# In this example, both modeling approaches yield comparable performance
|
||
|
# metrics. For implementation reasons, the percentage of explained variance
|
||
|
# :math:`D^2` is not available for the product model.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# We can additionally validate these models by comparing observed and
|
||
|
# predicted total claim amount over the test and train subsets. We see that,
|
||
|
# on average, both model tend to underestimate the total claim (but this
|
||
|
# behavior depends on the amount of regularization).
|
||
|
|
||
|
res = []
|
||
|
for subset_label, X, df in [
|
||
|
("train", X_train, df_train),
|
||
|
("test", X_test, df_test),
|
||
|
]:
|
||
|
exposure = df["Exposure"].values
|
||
|
res.append(
|
||
|
{
|
||
|
"subset": subset_label,
|
||
|
"observed": df["ClaimAmount"].values.sum(),
|
||
|
"predicted, frequency*severity model": np.sum(
|
||
|
exposure * glm_freq.predict(X) * glm_sev.predict(X)
|
||
|
),
|
||
|
"predicted, tweedie, power=%.2f"
|
||
|
% glm_pure_premium.power: np.sum(exposure * glm_pure_premium.predict(X)),
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
|
||
|
print(pd.DataFrame(res).set_index("subset").T)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# %%
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Finally, we can compare the two models using a plot of cumulated claims: for
|
||
|
# each model, the policyholders are ranked from safest to riskiest based on the
|
||
|
# model predictions and the fraction of observed total cumulated claims is
|
||
|
# plotted on the y axis. This plot is often called the ordered Lorenz curve of
|
||
|
# the model.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# The Gini coefficient (based on the area between the curve and the diagonal)
|
||
|
# can be used as a model selection metric to quantify the ability of the model
|
||
|
# to rank policyholders. Note that this metric does not reflect the ability of
|
||
|
# the models to make accurate predictions in terms of absolute value of total
|
||
|
# claim amounts but only in terms of relative amounts as a ranking metric. The
|
||
|
# Gini coefficient is upper bounded by 1.0 but even an oracle model that ranks
|
||
|
# the policyholders by the observed claim amounts cannot reach a score of 1.0.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# We observe that both models are able to rank policyholders by risky-ness
|
||
|
# significantly better than chance although they are also both far from the
|
||
|
# oracle model due to the natural difficulty of the prediction problem from a
|
||
|
# few features: most accidents are not predictable and can be caused by
|
||
|
# environmental circumstances that are not described at all by the input
|
||
|
# features of the models.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Note that the Gini index only characterizes the ranking performance of the
|
||
|
# model but not its calibration: any monotonic transformation of the predictions
|
||
|
# leaves the Gini index of the model unchanged.
|
||
|
#
|
||
|
# Finally one should highlight that the Compound Poisson Gamma model that is
|
||
|
# directly fit on the pure premium is operationally simpler to develop and
|
||
|
# maintain as it consists of a single scikit-learn estimator instead of a pair
|
||
|
# of models, each with its own set of hyperparameters.
|
||
|
from sklearn.metrics import auc
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
def lorenz_curve(y_true, y_pred, exposure):
|
||
|
y_true, y_pred = np.asarray(y_true), np.asarray(y_pred)
|
||
|
exposure = np.asarray(exposure)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# order samples by increasing predicted risk:
|
||
|
ranking = np.argsort(y_pred)
|
||
|
ranked_exposure = exposure[ranking]
|
||
|
ranked_pure_premium = y_true[ranking]
|
||
|
cumulated_claim_amount = np.cumsum(ranked_pure_premium * ranked_exposure)
|
||
|
cumulated_claim_amount /= cumulated_claim_amount[-1]
|
||
|
cumulated_samples = np.linspace(0, 1, len(cumulated_claim_amount))
|
||
|
return cumulated_samples, cumulated_claim_amount
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 8))
|
||
|
|
||
|
y_pred_product = glm_freq.predict(X_test) * glm_sev.predict(X_test)
|
||
|
y_pred_total = glm_pure_premium.predict(X_test)
|
||
|
|
||
|
for label, y_pred in [
|
||
|
("Frequency * Severity model", y_pred_product),
|
||
|
("Compound Poisson Gamma", y_pred_total),
|
||
|
]:
|
||
|
ordered_samples, cum_claims = lorenz_curve(
|
||
|
df_test["PurePremium"], y_pred, df_test["Exposure"]
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
gini = 1 - 2 * auc(ordered_samples, cum_claims)
|
||
|
label += " (Gini index: {:.3f})".format(gini)
|
||
|
ax.plot(ordered_samples, cum_claims, linestyle="-", label=label)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# Oracle model: y_pred == y_test
|
||
|
ordered_samples, cum_claims = lorenz_curve(
|
||
|
df_test["PurePremium"], df_test["PurePremium"], df_test["Exposure"]
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
gini = 1 - 2 * auc(ordered_samples, cum_claims)
|
||
|
label = "Oracle (Gini index: {:.3f})".format(gini)
|
||
|
ax.plot(ordered_samples, cum_claims, linestyle="-.", color="gray", label=label)
|
||
|
|
||
|
# Random baseline
|
||
|
ax.plot([0, 1], [0, 1], linestyle="--", color="black", label="Random baseline")
|
||
|
ax.set(
|
||
|
title="Lorenz Curves",
|
||
|
xlabel="Fraction of policyholders\n(ordered by model from safest to riskiest)",
|
||
|
ylabel="Fraction of total claim amount",
|
||
|
)
|
||
|
ax.legend(loc="upper left")
|
||
|
plt.plot()
|