Organizations: CEREMADE · 1ADDACTIS France, 46 bis Chemin du Vieux Moulin, 69160 Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France · 2CEREMADE, Universit´e Paris-Dauphine, PSL University, CNRS, 75016 Paris, France
Abstract
With the rapid development of machine learning and deep learning techniques, actuaries and the broader insurance industry face a persistent trade-off between predictive accuracy and interpretability. This paper provides a comprehensive applied assessment of Explainable Boosting Machines (EBM) in a car insurance framework, focusing on claim frequency and severity modeling. EBM combines the additive structure of generalized additive models (GAM) with a cyclic gradient boosting algorithm, resulting in a glass-box model whose predictions are interpretable by design. Using real-world data, we empirically illustrate its practical relevance and compare EBM with modern benchmark models used in non-life insurance pricing. The evaluation considers (i) out-of-sample predictive accuracy, including Murphy diagrams and Bregman dominance tests, and (ii) calibration assessment using T-reliability diagrams and Murphy's score decomposition. Finally, we highlight the link between EBM predictions and Shapley values, showing how predictions can be transparently decomposed into exact main and pairwise interaction effects, providing actionable insights beyond predictive performance.
Modelling claim frequency and severity for non-life insurance pricing predominantly relies on generalised linear models, with gradient-boosted machines as the leading machine learning alternative. Tabular foundation models (TFMs) present a fundamentally different inference paradigm. By pre-training on large collections of synthetic datasets, TFMs enable inference on new data through in-context learning, without any dataset-specific fitting or hyperparameter tuning. This paper presents a first empirical evaluation of TabPFN for motor insurance pricing, benchmarking it against GLM and XGBoost on two publicly available MTPL datasets. Our results show that TabPFN does not consistently outperform established baselines, exhibits substantially longer inference times, and is sensitive to the size of the in-context training set. While tabular foundation models represent a promising direction, particularly in data-scarce settings, their current performance does not offer a viable replacement for established actuarial methods.
Explanations of machine learning models are usually judged by criteria that are hard to compare. We propose a simpler test: if an explanation really describes how a model uses its features, it should be possible to rebuild the model's predictions from it. We turn each explanation into a predictor by reading each feature's effect and adding them up, and measure how well that predictor reproduces the model on unseen data. Nothing is fitted, so the score reflects the explanation itself. The test applies to any explanation that can be written as a function of the features; we demonstrate it on partial dependence plots (PDP), accumulated local effects (ALE), SHAP and LIME. We prove that summing partial dependence curves gives the best possible additive summary of a model when its features are independent, and that this fails when they are dependent. Across 13 real datasets and 9 synthetic designs and four model families, which method scores best depends entirely on feature dependence: where features are independent SHAP is slightly worse than PDP, exactly as the theory predicts; on dependent real data SHAP leads. Some widely used quality metrics even prefer a damaged explanation to an intact one.
The field of machine learning is subject to an increasing interest in models that are not only accurate but also interpretable and robust, thus allowing their end users to understand and trust AI systems. This paper presents a novel method for learning a set of optimal quantile regression trees. The advantages of this method are that (1) it provides predictions about the complete conditional distribution of a target variable without prior assumptions on this distribution; (2) it provides predictions that are interpretable; (3) it learns a set of optimal quantile regression trees without compromising algorithmic efficiency compared to learning a single tree.