A Practical Guide on Graphical Model Validation

Recent work has argued normatively, on synthetic data, that evaluating survival models by discrimination alone (concordance index) yields systematically misleading model comparisons, because the metric ignores calibration and time-dependent accuracy. Whether this matters for real, published, non-clinical models has not been tested. We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains -- hard-drive failure prediction, peer-to-peer credit default, and user disengagement on digital platforms -- validate our instrument against the anchor paper's own synthetic experiment, and test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate. Three of five reject (though one pre-registered threshold clears by a narrow margin). A model reproducing the published literature's discrimination almost exactly (C = 0.9595 vs. 0.958 reported) fails a formal calibration test at p < 0.001; a broad feature-ablation search finds no single attribute responsible for its discrimination, so the calibration failure is not a trivial shortcut artifact. A lender's estimated default risk is biased upward by roughly two percentage points, growing to nearly four in the riskiest segment, when loan prepayment is treated as non-informative censoring rather than a competing risk. A platform's churn model shows probability estimates that degrade with the horizon even as global discrimination stays within the pre-registered C-index band. A direct test of whether metric choice inverts model preference does not reject, though with limited power given two to three models per domain; the failure mode we document is better characterized as misplaced confidence in a chosen model than as choosing the wrong one. We release a pre-registered evaluation harness with full code and an annotated notebook, so these results can be verified independently and the audit extended.

Scaling laws in modern deep learning describe how held-out loss improves as model capacity, training data, and compute increase, often following power-law trends. We investigate whether analogous scaling regularities arise in actuarial ratemaking, where data are tabular, heterogeneous, and noisy, and where classical models such as GLMs remain strong baselines. Using a real-world motor insurance portfolio, we train models from different families across increasing fractions of the training data and multiple random seeds, evaluating out-of-sample Poisson deviance, a likelihood-based loss for Poisson count predictions in which lower values indicate better held-out fit. We find that all model families improve with additional data, but scaling exponents differ substantially: TabM exhibits markedly stronger data scaling than purely supervised tabular Transformers and standard MLP baselines. Transformer variants show weak parameter scaling unless augmented with additional inductive biases (TabM-style adaptation or self-supervision). These results provide quantitative guidance on model selection by data regime and suggest that effective scaling on actuarial tabular tasks depends on architecture and loss function objective design, with simple increases in Transformer size providing limited gains.

When providing forecasted probabilities with a predictive model, the ideal model offers perfect calibration: the true probability of the outcome (i.e., the probability that $Y=1$) exactly matches the forecasted probability $f(X)$. In practice, models inevitably exhibit calibration error, and it is therefore important to be able to measure this miscalibration to assess a model's reliability. The Expected Calibration Error (ECE) is the most widely used measure of miscalibration, but is known to be impossible to estimate the ECE with guaranteed accuracy in an assumption-free setting. In this work, we propose an alternative measure, the rankECE, that is based on comparing points with neighboring values of the predicted probability $f(X)$. Our theoretical guarantees and empirical results establish that rankECE provides a better proxy for ECE as compared to binned approximations to ECE, which are the most commonly-used approximations in practice.