Explainable Auto Insurance Risk Prediction via Exposure-Aware Feature Interaction and Cross-Fitted Residual Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/43cc0p64Keywords:
Motor insurance, claim frequency, feature interactions, residual learning, Poisson deviance, explainable machine learning, exposure offsetAbstract
Accurate prediction of motor insurance claim frequency must jointly address nonlinear interactions, heterogeneous exposure periods and transparent risk attribution. Building on the Transformer–SHAP framework of Sun et al. for interpretable auto-insurance risk evaluation, this paper develops exposure-aware interaction and cross-fitted residual learning (EICRL). A regularized LightGBM model estimates annual claim frequency under exposure weights, and an independently fitted Poisson offset model corrects out-of-fold log-frequency errors with sparse, interpretable interaction terms; validation-controlled shrinkage and a positive exponential link yield stable, nonnegative expected claim counts. On a stochastic motor-portfolio simulator with exposure heterogeneity, rare counts and nonlinear actuarial interactions, EICRL lowers held-out Poisson deviance relative to LightGBM in all 15 independent portfolios of 48,000 policies (0.39247 versus 0.39461; paired 95% interval of the reduction [0.00150, 0.00278]). Ablations separate the contributions of interaction modeling and cross-fitting, and whole-pipeline permutation analysis identifies bonus–malus and driver age as the dominant predictors. EICRL thus provides an exposure-consistent and explainable frequency model ready for validation on observed portfolios such as freMTPL2freq.
Downloads
References
[1] Nelder, J. A., & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972). Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 135(3), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2344614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2344614
[2] McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6
[3] Wüthrich, M. V., & Merz, M. (2023). Statistical foundations of actuarial learning and its applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12409-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12409-9
[4] Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29(5), 1189–1232. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
[5] Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
[6] Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785–794). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
[7] Yue, X., & Zhu, R. (2024). An explainable hybrid machine learning framework for cash-flow-conditioned multi-horizon liquidity risk early warning: An SME-oriented benchmark study. World Journal of Management Science, 2(1), 63–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wms4120
[8] Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, A. V., & Gulin, A. (2018). CatBoost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31.
[9] Sun, T., Yang, J., Li, J., Chen, J., Liu, M., Fan, L., & Wang, X. (2024). Enhancing auto insurance risk evaluation with Transformer and SHAP. IEEE Access, 12, 116546–116557. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3446179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3446179
[10] Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
[11] He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016). Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 770–778). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90
[12] Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874
[13] Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., & Lee, S. I. (2020). From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9
[14] Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). Why should I trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 1135–1144). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
[15] Apley, D. W., & Zhu, J. (2020). Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 82(4), 1059–1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12377 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12377
[16] Fisher, A., Rudin, C., & Dominici, F. (2019). All models are wrong, but many are useful: Learning a variable’s importance by studying an entire class of prediction models simultaneously. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(177), 1–81.
[17] Wang, J., Ge, Y., Liu, J., & Jiang, B. (2024). Early warning of liquidity stress in U.S. banks with seasonally aligned frailty hazards and delayed-feedback conformal alarms. Journal of Trends in Finance and Economics, 1(1), 85–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/jtfe4078
[18] Arik, S. O., & Pfister, T. (2021). TabNet: Attentive interpretable tabular learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(8), 6679–6687. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826
[19] Gorishniy, Y., Rubachev, I., Khrulkov, V., & Babenko, A. (2021). Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.11959
[20] Huang, X., Khetan, A., Cvitkovic, M., & Karnin, Z. (2020). TabTransformer: Tabular data modeling using contextual embeddings. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.06678
[21] Somepalli, G., Goldblum, M., Schwarzschild, A., Bruss, C. B., & Goldstein, T. (2021). SAINT: Improved neural networks for tabular data via row attention and contrastive pre-training. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.01342
[22] Grinsztajn, L., Oyallon, E., & Varoquaux, G. (2022). Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.08815 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-0037
[23] Dutang, C., & Charpentier, A. (n.d.). CASdatasets: Insurance datasets (R package). https://github.com/dutangc/CASdatasets
[24] Vanschoren, J., van Rijn, J. N., Bischl, B., & Torgo, L. (2014). OpenML: Networked science in machine learning. SIGKDD Explorations, 15(2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1145/2641190.2641198 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2641190.2641198
[25] Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Li, M., & Liu, Y. (2026). FairPromote: Explainable and Fairness-Aware Talent Promotion Prediction via Adversarial Debiasing and SHAP-Based Interpretation. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3692578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3692578
[26] Zou, J., Feng, E., Li, P., & Wang, G. (2026). Horizon-aware group-conditional conformal prediction: Post-hoc shrinkage for sparse multi-horizon coverage auditing. Machine Learning with Applications, 26, 101038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2026.101038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2026.101038
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Finance and Accounting
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
