Dual evaluation of performance and fairness from machine learning models for non-life insurance pricing

Abstract An increasing number of reports highlight the potential of machine learning (ML) methodologies over the conventional generalised linear model (GLM) for non-life insurance pricing. In parallel, national and international regulatory institutions are accentuating their focus on pricing fairness to quantify and mitigate algorithmic differences and discrimination. However, comprehensive studies that assess both pricing accuracy and fairness remain scarce. We propose a benchmark of the GLM against mainstream regularised linear models and tree-based ensemble models under two popular distribution modelling strategies (Poisson-gamma and Tweedie), with respect to key criteria including estimation bias, deviance, risk differentiation, competitiveness, loss ratios, discrimination and fairness. Pricing performance and fairness were assessed simultaneously on the same samples of premium estimates for GLM and ML models. The models were compared on two open-access motor insurance datasets, each with a different type of cover (fully comprehensive and third-party liability). While no single ML model outperformed across both pricing and discrimination metrics, the GLM significantly underperformed for most. The results indicate that ML may be considered a realistic and reasonable alternative to current practices. We advocate that benchmarking exercises for risk prediction models should be carried out to assess both pricing accuracy and fairness for any given portfolio.