The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Experience Rating and Credibility
Open accessAbstract
Classical statistics deals with the following standard problem of estimation: Given: random variables X1, X2 … Xn independent, identically distributed, and observations x1, X2 … xn, Estimate: parameter (or function thereof) of the distribution function common to all Xi. It is not surprising that the “classical actuary” has mostly been involved in solving the actuarial equivalent of this problem in insurance, namely Given: risks R1R2 … Rn no contagion, homogeneous group, Find: the proper (common) rate for all risks in the given class. There have, of course, always been actuaries who have questioned the assumptions of independence (no contagion) and/or identical distribution (homogeneity). As long as ratemaking is considered equivalent to the determination of the mean, there seem to be no additional difficulties if the hypothesis of independence is dropped. But is there a way to drop the condition of homogeneity (identical distribution)?
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Bühlmann reviews seven papers on credibility and experience rating, arguing that experience rating gradually adjusts an initial rate during coverage and that Bayesian and credibility methods can handle heterogeneous risks. He also offers an equilibrium justification for the posterior mean and derives a distribution-free credibility formula.
Key findings
- Experience rating is described as the gradual alteration of an initially fixed rate during the risk-coverage period, implemented through devices such as profit participation, no-claims discounts, bonus-malus scales, sliding-scale premiums or commissions, and reinsurance arrangements.
- Among the reviewed papers, Bohman finds that maximum business volume is generally not reached at the lowest possible premiums; Benckert tests tariff-class adequacy using a lognormal distribution for individual claim amounts; Johansen treats risk parameters as random variables to identify accident-prone risks; and Lundberg proves consistency of a Bayes estimate from a Poisson process while showing that estimates based on time of absence are not consistent.
- Franckx derives the credibility formula from least squares without assuming a distribution for individual risks, though still depending on the prior distribution of risk parameters; Derron computes credibility improvement for a Pareto-type distribution when the largest claim is excluded.
- Bühlmann proposes equilibrium across experience-rated subclasses as a justification for using the posterior mean, and derives a credibility relation with a factor of the form \(b = n/(n+k)\), noting that it makes no assumption about the individual-risk distribution or the structural distribution.
Methods
- The text is a discussion/report on seven submitted papers plus the author’s own technical remarks; it does not present an empirical dataset or sample.
- It reviews sequential statistical methods, Bayes procedures, and credibility techniques, then develops mathematical arguments using conditional expectation, least-squares linear approximation, and an equilibrium postulate.
- The main analysis is conceptual and mathematical, including variance-component expressions and a distribution-free credibility derivation.
Limitations
- The paper states that classical sequential methods such as Wald’s Sequential Probability Ratio Test cannot go beyond testing an entire tariff class and fail for the individual-risk case; it also notes that only one submitted paper specifically addresses credibility techniques, and that direct estimation of \(E[\sigma^2(\theta)]\) and \(\mathrm{Var}[\mu(\theta)]\) from a priori observations has not yet been attempted.
- It observes that Bichsel treats random changes in individual risks over time, but suggests that trend-type changes remain untreated.
- Evident from the text: the work is a commentary/report rather than an empirical study, and some formulas are incomplete in the provided text.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
10 Sources not found · 4 Own interpretation
In the paper
“It is noteworthy that the classical sequential methods, such as those developed by Abraham Wald, do not permit to go beyond the testing of a whole tariff class.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Abraham Wald
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“His main result, namely that the maximum volume is generally not achieved at the lowest possible premium rates, is certainly of great practical value.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harald Bohman
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 1
In the paper
“His main result consists in the proof of the consistency of the Bayes estimate derived from a Poisson process.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ove Lundberg
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Derron computes the credibility improvement for a Pareto-type distribution if the largest claim is excluded.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marcel Derron
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This advantage, by the way, is not bought at the expense of an increasingly complicated formula, a fact that for practical purposes will certainly be appreciated as well.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Paul Johansen
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above relation is exactly Kolmogoroff's definition of the conditional expectation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each class of risks with equal observed risk performance should pay its own way (equilibrium postulate).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worthwhile to note here that the credibility formula used by our American colleagues is nothing but a linearization of the above estimator function”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It seems to me that in doing so he is the first author to prove the credibility relation independent of the distribution function which governs the individual risks (but still dependent on the prior distribution of the risk parameter or parameters).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Edouard Franckx
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Ove Lundberg seems to have been the first actuary to realize the importance of Bayes procedures for experience rating.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ove Lundberg
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“I mean that Marcel Derron has very clearly shown to us the importance of truncating or curtailing our basic data to get more reliable information out of them.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marcel Derron
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In contrast to the Bayes estimate, Ove Lundberg shows that any estimate based on the time of absence is not consistent”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ove Lundberg
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Wald's Sequential Probability Ratio Test can be of help in case a), but unfortunately fails to solve the problem in case b).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Abraham Wald
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditionaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hypothesis of independence and identical distribution of the observational random variables of the same individual risk could easily be dropped.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The observational random variables X_i for the same individual risk are independent and identically distributed (homogeneity in time, but not in mass).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To get a classification of risks inside a tariff class, it is necessary to treat the risk parameters no longer as constants, but as random variables.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The observational random variables X_i for the same individual risk are independent and identically distributed (homogeneity in time, but not in mass).
“As is usually done I assume the Xt's to be independent and identically distributed (homogeneity in time, but not in mass).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each class of risks with equal observed risk performance should pay its own way (equilibrium postulate).
“In other words it is postulated that each class of risks with equal observed risk performance should pay its own way.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All actuarial work so far has dropped homogeneity in mass but still required homogeneity in time of the individual risk.
“All actuarial work so far has, at least according to my knowledge, been done by dropping homogeneity in mass but by still requiring homogeneity in time of the individual risk”
Citations
Cites
On random processes and their application to sickness and accident statistics
Lundberg, O. (1940) · Almqvist & Wiksell eBooks · Cited by 175
A generalization of the collective theory of risk in regard to fluctuating basic-probabilities
Ammeter, H. (1948) · Scandinavian Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1080/03461238.1948.10404899 · Cited by 102
Einige Bemerkungen zur Bonusfrage in der Kraftfahrversicherung
Philipson, C. (1963) · Blätter der DGVFM · doi:10.1007/bf02809297
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 1964, Eine Bemerkung zu Bichsels Herleitung der bedingten zukünftigen Schadenhäufigkeit einer Polya-Verteilung
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 448
Szymańska, A. E. (2018) · Economic and Environmental Studies · doi:10.25167/ees.2018.46.28 · Cited by 1
Integrating banks’ decision on financing dry bulk shipping: a multivariable approach
Maniati, M., Sambracos, E., & Nikolaidis, E. (2019) · Maritime Policy & Management · doi:10.1080/03088839.2019.1684590 · Cited by 1
Courtois, O. A. L. (2021) · Variance · doi:10.66573/001c.142012 · Cited by 1
Solvencia en un reaseguro finite risk
Cardell, M. À. P., & Vizcarra, F. J. S. (2009) · Anales del Instituto de Actuarios Españoles · Cited by 1
Bayesian Credibility With A Noninformative Prior
Klugman, S. A. (1986) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4620-0_11 · Cited by 1
A note on optimal parameter estimation under zero-excess assumptions
Goulet, V. (1998) · Insurance Mathematics and Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6687(98)00016-x · Cited by 1
The practical application of credibility theory
Goovaerts, M. J., Bauwelinckx, T., & Stoop, C. (1989) · Insurance Mathematics and Economics · doi:10.1016/0167-6687(89)90043-7 · Cited by 1
de Alba, E. (2001) · North American Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1080/10920277.2001.10596016 · Cited by 1
An Accurate Asymptotic Approximation for Experience Rated Premiums
Gatto, R. (2004) · Astin Bulletin · doi:10.1017/s051503610001391x · Cited by 1
Selected Longitudinal and Panel Data Sets
Frees, E. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.018 · Cited by 1
The Statistical Distribution of Incurred Losses and Its Evolution Over Time I: Non-Parametric ModelsPreprint
Taylor, G. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2660658 · Cited by 1
A Flexible Bayesian Nonparametric Model for Predicting Future Insurance ClaimsPreprint
Hong, L., & Martin, R. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2690843 · Cited by 1
An Extension of the Bühlmann Credibility Model
Kremer, E. (2001) · Blätter der DGVFM · doi:10.1007/bf02857116 · Cited by 1
Credibility theory and experience rating in general insurance
Kandil, M. B. H. (1983) · City Research Online (City University London) · Cited by 1
Actuarial Ratemaking in Agricultural Insurance
Zhu, W. (2015) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 1
Bayesian Credibility Premium with GB2 CopulasPreprint
Jeong, H., & Valdez, E. A. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3373377 · Cited by 1
The Statistical Distribution of Incurred Losses and Its Evolution Over Time II: Parametric ModelsPreprint
Taylor, G. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2660058 · Cited by 1
Norberg, R. (2014) · Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · doi:10.1002/9781118445112.stat04723 · Cited by 1
Credibility theory and generalized linear models
Verrall, R. J. (1996) · Insurance Mathematics and Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6687(96)90088-8 · Cited by 1
Experience Rating of Risk Premium for Esscher Premium PrinciplePreprint
Zhang, Y. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4170554 · Cited by 1
Experience Rating in InsurancePreprint
Wüthrich, M. V. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4726206 · Cited by 1
Risk Theory, A Tool for Management?
de Wit, G. W. (1986) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4620-0_1 · Cited by 1
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.003 · Cited by 1
Ocena ryzyka ubezpieczeniowego w portfelach niejednorodnych
Jasiulewicz, H. (2006)
Porównanie wybranych metod kalkulacji składki w ubezpieczeniach majątkowych
Ronka-Chmielowiec, W., Kowalczyk, P., & Poprawska, E. (2006)
Credibility theory for phase-type distributions
Zang, Y. (2013) · Scholarship@Western (Western University)
Teoria zaufania : modele aktuarialne
Jasiulewicz, H. (2005)
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.019
Prediction and Bayesian Inference
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.005
Frees, E. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.015
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.002
Credibility theory and filter theory in discrete and continuous timePreprint
Maier, R., & Merz, M. (2008) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
Categorical Dependent Variables and Survival Models
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.012
Fijación de primas de seguros bajo técnicas de robustez bayesiana
Gómez–Déniz, E., & Sánchez, J. M. P. (2001)
Frees, E. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.017
About the Justification of Experience Rating: Bonus Malus System and a new Poisson Mixture ModelPreprint
Schiegl, M. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1009.4142
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.010
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.009
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.001
Credibility Using Semiparametric Models With Adaptive Kernel
Demir, S., & Mert, M. (2013) · DergiPark (Istanbul University)
Spatial cross-sectional credibility models with general dependence structure among risks
Poon, J. (2013) · Summit (Simon Fraser University)
Using Convex Combination of Copulas and EM Algorithm for Credibility
Song, L., Lu, D., & Liu, F. (2014) · Communication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · doi:10.1080/03610926.2012.668604
Kim, H. T., & Jeon, Y. (2014) · Korean Journal of Applied Statistics · doi:10.5351/kjas.2014.27.1.071
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.007
CREDIBILITY THEORY: A CONCISE PARTIAL SURVEY1
Zehnwirth, B. (1983) · Australian Journal of Statistics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-842x.1983.tb00394.x
Linacre, N. A., Burgman, M. A., Ades, P. K., et al. (2005) · AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.59233
Multithreading for High Performance Finance Risk Analysis
Wei, W. (2013) · Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London)
Método de Bootstrap e Teoria da Credibilidade na Estimativa das Provisões para Sinistros
Sousa, N. F. (2011) · New University of Lisbon's Repository (New University of Lisbon)
Ebrahimzadeh, M., Ibrahim, N. A., Jemain, A. A., et al. (2011) · J for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development · doi:10.1504/jibed.2011.042388
Parameters selection study of high-operating temperature MCT photoconductor detectors
Wang, W., Xu, J., Jiang, P., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.901974
Semiparametric Credibility Ratemaking Using a Piecewise Linear Prior
Nong, J. (2011) · International Joint Conference on Computational Sciences and Optimization (CSO) · doi:10.1109/cso.2011.237
Sistemas informáticos aplicados a la matemática actuarial no vida: una propuesta con R
Bielsa, M. M. C., del Val, E. B., Cor, T. C., et al. (2012) · Rect@: Revista Electrónica de Comunicaciones y Trabajos de ASEPUMA
Frees, E. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.004
Modelos Determinísticos e Estocásticos Aplicados ao Cálculo de Provisões para Sinistros
Cardoso, R. M. R. (2014)
Pricing of General Insurance and the Impact of Asymmetric Information
Englund, M. (2010)
Evans, J., & Dean, C. G. (2014) · Variance · doi:10.66573/001c.120831
Application of loglinear models to claims triangle runoff data
Martin, N. L. (2015)
Frees, E. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.014
Asymptotic optimality of Bayes and credibility premiums
Schmidt, K. D. (1989) · MADOC (University of Mannheim)
On the application of credibility theory and GLMS
Muchina, J. N. (2013)
Kremer, E. (1999) · Blätter der DGVFM · doi:10.1007/bf02808605
Kremer, E. (2006) · Blätter der DGVFM · doi:10.1007/bf02809171
On credibility and robustness with the Kalman filterPreprint
Romera, R., & Garrido, J. (1995) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
Orders, S., & Hürlimann, W. (2008)
State Space Model and the Kalman Filter
Frees, E. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.016
Frees, E. W. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790928.013
The credibility estimators with dependence over risks
Zhang, Q., Cui, Q., & Wu, L. (2014) · Applied Mathematical Sciences · doi:10.12988/ams.2014.410803
Modeling issues in longevity and bonus-malus system
Tan, C. I. (2015) · DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) · doi:10.32657/10356/63168
Szymańska, A. E. (2016) · Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia oeconomica · doi:10.18778/0208-6018.322.10
The Recursive Credibility Model of Maximum Entropy Method
张, 兴. (2017) · Statistics and Applications · doi:10.12677/sa.2017.62013
Gigante, P., Picech, L., & Sigalotti, L. (2001) · ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/)
Estimation of Credible Net Premiums by World Regions to Cover Catastrophe Losses
Jindrová, P. (2017) · WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Szymańska, A. E. (2018) · Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia oeconomica · doi:10.18778/0208-6018.336.01
Claim dependence in hierarchical credibility models and estimation of structural parameters
Ebrahimzadeh, M. (2012) · Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Putra Malaysia)
Appleby, M. R., Pratt, J. J., & Hodge, B. E. (1981) · SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · doi:10.4271/810216
Regression credibility estimator with two-level common effects
Zhang, Q., & Chen, P. (2019) · Communication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · doi:10.1080/03610926.2019.1643887
Asymptotic Normality of Nonparametric Estimate for Zero-Utility Premiums
Wen, L., Zhuang, X., Guo-ping, M., et al. (2019) · Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica English Series · doi:10.1007/s10255-019-0833-7
Kalkulacja składki w niejednorodnych portfelach ubezpieczeń majątkowych
Poprawska, E. (2003)
Computational Bayesian Methods for Insurance Premium Estimation
Xacur, Q., Alberto, O., & Oaqx (2019)
Ai, J., & Brockett, P. L. (2014) · Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · doi:10.1002/9781118445112.stat03570
The Bühlmann–Straub Estimation of Claim Means in Random B-F Reserve Model
Zhang, Y., Wen, L., & Li, Z. (2020) · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · doi:10.1155/2020/6062906
“See Bühlmann and Gisler [16] for more detail.”
BackgroundInfluentialQuantiles in a multi-stage nested classification credibility model
Pitselis, G. (2020) · European Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1007/s13385-020-00239-w
Pricing foreseeable and unforeseeable risks in insurance portfoliosPreprint
Ni, W., Constantinescu, C. D., dos Reis, A. D. E., et al. (2020) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.03123
Sample Size Determination for Credibility EstimationPreprint
Hong, L. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3709108
Gómez–Déniz, E., & Calderín–Ojeda, E. (2020) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math9010045
Regression Tree Credibility ModelPreprint
Diao, L., & Weng, C. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3288661
Model Misspecification, Bayesian Versus Credibility Estimation, and Gibbs PosteriorsPreprint
Hong, L., & Martin, R. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3421780
Experience rating and stochastic reserving in general insurance
Martinek, L. (2020) · Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem · doi:10.15476/elte.2019.069
New Perspectives and Methods in Loss Reserving Using Generalized Linear Models
Tao, J. (2014) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)
Robust credibility and Kalman filtering
Tam, M. (1998) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)
Klugman, S. A., Panjer, H. H., & Willmot, G. E. (2008) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470391341.refs
An Accurate Asymptotic Approximation for Experience Rated Premiums
Gatto, R. (2004) · Astin Bulletin · doi:10.2143/ast.34.1.504958
Klugman, S. A. (2004) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess6046
Klugman, S. A. (2014) · Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · doi:10.1002/9781118445112.stat00023
Gisler, A. (2010) · Encyclopedia of Quantitative Finance · doi:10.1002/9780470061602.eqf21019
Norberg, R. (2015) · Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · doi:10.1002/9781118445112.stat04723.pub2
Lėhmann, F., Tönne, R., Boehm, C., et al. (1968) · Blätter der DGVFM · doi:10.1007/bf02809777
Gao, G. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-3609-6_1
Metadata
- Authors
- Bühlmann, H.
- Corresponding author
- Bühlmann, Hans
- Venue
- ASTIN Bulletin
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1967-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 199-207
- ISSN
- 0515-0361 (ISSN-L)
- 1783-1350
- OpenAlex
- W2400614507
- Semantic Scholar
- 6e0d5024a35bc27c601c4b19050490a1d3fa7e8d
- Cited by
- 438
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 2.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Astin Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Probability and Risk Models
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Insurance and Financial Risk Management
- Keywords
- experience rating, credibility theory, ratemaking, insurance premium estimation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
