CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 12Ethics and Social Impacts of AIInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementProbability and Risk Models

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learning

Open access
Grari, Vincent, Charpentier, Arthur, Detyniecki, Marcin·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2202.12008arXiv 2202.12008
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

At the core of insurance business lies classification between risky and non-risky insureds, actuarial fairness meaning that risky insureds should contribute more and pay a higher premium than non-risky or less-risky ones. Actuaries, therefore, use econometric or machine learning techniques to classify, but the distinction between a fair actuarial classification and "discrimination" is subtle. For this reason, there is a growing interest about fairness and discrimination in the actuarial community Lindholm, Richman, Tsanakas, and Wuthrich (2022). Presumably, non-sensitive characteristics can serve as substitutes or proxies for protected attributes. For example, the color and model of a car, combined with the driver's occupation, may lead to an undesirable gender bias in the prediction of car insurance prices. Surprisingly, we will show that debiasing the predictor alone may be insufficient to maintain adequate accuracy (1). Indeed, the traditional pricing model is currently built in a two-stage structure that considers many potentially biased components such as car or geographic risks. We will show that this traditional structure has significant limitations in achieving fairness. For this reason, we have developed a novel pricing model approach. Recently some approaches have Blier-Wong, Cossette, Lamontagne, and Marceau (2021); Wuthrich and Merz (2021) shown the value of autoencoders in pricing. In this paper, we will show that (2) this can be generalized to multiple pricing factors (geographic, car type), (3) it perfectly adapted for a fairness context (since it allows to debias the set of pricing components): We extend this main idea to a general framework in which a single whole pricing model is trained by generating the geographic and car pricing components needed to predict the pure premium while mitigating the unwanted bias according to the desired metric.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2202.12008

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Agarwal, A., Beygelzimer, A., Dudik, M., Langford, J., and Wallach, H. (2018). A reductions approach to fair classification. In ICML'18 , pages 60-69.
  2. Baharlouei, S., Nouiehed, M., and Razaviyayn, M. (2019). Rényi fair inference. CoRR , abs/1906.12005. · arXiv
  3. Barrett, J. and Lampard, D. (1955). An expansion for some second-order probability distributions and its application to noise problems. IRE Transactions on Information Theory , 1(1):10-15.
  4. Bellamy, R. K., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., et al. (2018). Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv , 1810.01943. · arXiv
  5. Blier-Wong, C., Baillargeon, J.-T., Cossette, H., Lamontagne, L., and Marceau, E. (2021a). Rethinking representations in p&c actuarial science with deep neural networks. arXiv , 2102.05784. · arXiv
  6. Blier-Wong, C., Cossette, H., Lamontagne, L., and Marceau, E. (2021b). Geographic ratemaking with spatial embeddings. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , pages 1-31.
  7. Bol'shev, L. N. and Mirvaliev, M. (1979). Chi square goodness-of-fit test for the poisson, binomial and negative binomial distributions. Theory of Probability & Its Applications , 23(3):461-474.
  8. Boskov, M. and Verrall, R. (1994). Premium rating by geographic area using spatial models. ASTIN Bulletin , 24(1):131-143.
  9. Buja, A. (1990). Remarks on Functional Canonical Variates, Alternating Least Squares Methods and Ace. The Annals of Statistics , 18(3):1032 - 1069.
  10. Calmon, F. P., Wei, D., Ramamurthy, K. N., and Varshney, K. R. (2017). Optimized data pre-processing for discrimination prevention. arXiv , 1704.03354. · arXiv
  11. Charpentier, A. (2014). Computational actuarial science with R . CRC press.
  12. Chen, J., Kallus, N., Mao, X., Svacha, G., and Udell, M. (2019). Fairness under unawareness: Assessing disparity when protected class is unobserved. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 339-348.
  13. Dauxois, J. and Nkiet, G. M. (1998). Nonlinear canonical analysis and independence tests. The Annals of Statistics , 26(4):1254 - 1278.
  14. Dutang, C. and Charpentier, A. (2019). Casdatasets r package vignette. Reference Manual, November , 13(2019):1-0.
  15. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., and Zemel, R. (2011). Fairness Through Awareness. arXiv , 1104.3913. · arXiv
  16. Embrechts, P. and Wüthrich, M. V. (2022). Recent challenges in actuarial science. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , 9.
  17. Fahrmeir, L., Lang, S., and Spies, F. (2003). Generalized geoadditive models for insurance claims data. Blätter der DGVFM , 26(1):7-23.
  18. Feldman, M., Friedler, S., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., and Venkatasubramanian, S. (2014). Certifying and removing disparate impact. arXiv , 1412.3756:1-28. · arXiv
  19. Frees, E. W. and Huang, F. (2021). The discriminating (pricing) actuary. North American Actuarial Journal , pages 1-23.
  20. Frees, E. W. and Lee, G. (2015). Rating endorsements using generalized linear models. Variance , 10(1):51-74.
  21. Fromion, V. (2000). Lipschitz continuous neural networks on l/sub p/. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.00CH37187) , volume 4, pages 3528-3533 vol.4.
  22. Gao, G. and Wüthrich, M. V. (2018). Feature extraction from telematics car driving heatmaps. European Actuarial Journal , 8(2):383-406.
  23. Gebelein, H. (1941). Das statistische problem der korrelation als variations- und eigenwertproblem und sein zusammenhang mit der ausgleichsrechnung. ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik , 21(6):364-379.
  24. Goodfellow, I., McDaniel, P., and Papernot, N. (2018). Making machine learning robust against adversarial inputs. Communications of the ACM , 61(7):56--66.
  25. Goodfellow, I., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C. (2014). Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. ArXiv , 1412.6572. · arXiv
  26. Grari, V., Lamprier, S., and Detyniecki, M. (2022). Fairness without the sensitive attribute via causal variational autoencoder. In Raedt, L. D., editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022 , pages 696-702. ijcai.org.
  27. Grari, V., Ruf, B., Lamprier, S., and Detyniecki, M. (2020a). Fairness-aware neural rényi minimization for continuous features. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020 , pages 2262-2268. ijcai.org.
  28. Grari, V., Ruf, B., Lamprier, S., and Detyniecki, M. (2020b). Fairness-aware neural rényi minimization for continuous features. In Bessiere, C., editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020 , pages 2262-2268. ijcai.org.
  29. Hardt, M., Price, E., and Srebro, N. (2016). Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 3315-3323.
  30. Hirschfeld, H. O. (1935). A connection between correlation and contingency. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 31(4):520-524.
  31. Jensen, D. and Mayer, L. (1977). Some Variational Results and Their Applications in Multiple Inference. The Annals of Statistics , 5(5):922 - 931.
  32. Kakade, S. M., Kanade, V., Shamir, O., and Kalai, A. (2011). Efficient learning of generalized linear and single index models with isotonic regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 24.
  33. Kamiran, F. and Calders, T. (2012). Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination. Knowledge and Information Systems , 33(1):1-33.
  34. Kim, P. T. (2017). Auditing algorithms for discrimination. University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 166:189.
  35. Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., Russell, C., and Silva, R. (2017). Counterfactual Fairness. arXiv , 1703.06856(Nips). · arXiv
  36. Lancaster, H. O. (1958). The Structure of Bivariate Distributions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 29(3):719 - 736.
  37. Lindholm, M., Richman, R., Tsanakas, A., and Wüthrich, M. V. (2022). Discrimination-free insurance pricing. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , 52(1):55-89.
  38. Lopez-Paz, D., Hennig, P., and Schölkopf, B. (2013). The randomized dependence coefficient. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 1-9.
  39. Louppe, G., Kagan, M., and Cranmer, K. (2017). Learning to pivot with adversarial networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 981-990.
  40. Macnicol, J. (2006). Age discrimination: An historical and contemporary analysis . Cambridge University Press.
  41. Mary, J., Calauzènes, C., and El Karoui, N. (2019). Fairness-aware learning for continuous attributes and treatments. In Chaudhuri, K. and Salakhutdinov, R., editors, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 4382-4391. PMLR.
  42. McCarthy, D. D. and Turner, J. A. (1993). Risk classification and sex discrimination in pension plans. The Journal of Risk and Insurance , 60(1):85-104.
  43. Prince, A. E. and Schwarcz, D. (2019). Proxy discrimination in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Iowa Law Review , 105:1257.
  44. Rényi, A. (1959). On measures of dependence. Acta mathematica hungarica , 10(3-4):441-451.
  45. Scarsini, M. (1984). On measures of concordance. Stochastica , 8(3):201-218.
  46. Schmeiser, H., Störmer, T., and Wagner, J. (2014). Unisex insurance pricing: Consumers' perception and market implications. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice , 39(2):322-350.
  47. Shi, P. and Shi, K. (2021). Nonlife insurance risk classification using categorical embedding. SSRN , 3777526.
  48. Taylor, G. (1989). Use of spline functions for premium rating by geographic area. ASTIN Bulletin , 19(1):91-122.
  49. Thiery, Y. and Schoubroeck, C. V. (2006). Fairness and Equality in Insurance Classification. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice , 31(2):190-211.
  50. Thomas, G. (2012). Non-risk price discrimination in insurance: market outcomes and public policy. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice , 37(1):27-46.
  51. Tjøstheim, D., Otneim, H., and Støve, B. (2022). Statistical dependence: Beyond pearson's ρ . Statistical Science , 37(1):90-109.
  52. Tufvesson, O., Lindström, J., and Lindström, E. (2019). Spatial statistical modelling of insurance risk: a spatial epidemiological approach to car insurance. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , 2019(6):508-522.
  53. Van de Geer, S. A. (2008). High-dimensional generalized linear models and the lasso. The Annals of Statistics , 36(2):614-645.
  54. Wadsworth, C., Vera, F., and Piech, C. (2018). Achieving fairness through adversarial learning: an application to recidivism prediction. arXiv:1807.00199 . · arXiv
  55. Wang, C., Schifano, E. D., and Yan, J. (2017). Geographical ratings with spatial random effects in a two-part model. Variance , 13(1):20.
  56. Witsenhausen, H. S. (1975). On sequences of pairs of dependent random variables. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 28(1):100-113.
  57. Wortham, L. (1986). Insurance classification: Too important to be left to the actuaries. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform , 349.
  58. Wuthrich, M. V. and Merz, M. (2021). Statistical foundations of actuarial learning and its applications. SSRN , 3822407.
  59. Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Rogriguez, M. G., and Gummadi, K. P. (2017). Fairness Constraints: Mechanisms for Fair Classification. In AISTATS'17 , pages 962-970, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
  60. Zhang, B. H., Lemoine, B., and Mitchell, M. (2018). Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning. In AAAI'18 , pages 335-340.
  61. Zliobaite, I. (2015). A survey on measuring indirect discrimination in machine learning. arXiv: 1511.00148 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 12

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grari, V., Charpentier, A., & Detyniecki, M.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • AXA (France) (FR)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2202.12008
arXiv
2202.12008
OpenAlex
W4226133645
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Insurance and Financial Risk Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Probability and Risk Models
Keywords
insurance pricing, actuarial fairness, algorithmic discrimination, adversarial learning, autoencoder, automobile insurance, gender bias, protected characteristics, bias mitigation

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2202.12008
The paper
Grari, V., Charpentier, A., & Detyniecki, M. (2022). A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2202.12008