Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.03106

Scaling Laws, Tabular Data and Actuarial Ratemaking Models

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ronald Richman. 2026-09-02. Scaling Laws, Tabular Data and Actuarial Ratemaking Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03106

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

DisclosureBeta: A Measurement-Channel Theory for Regime-Conditioned Betas from LLM-Read Risk Disclosures

The problem is the beta a desk needs when a firm's price history is too short to trust: an S-1 filer, a recent listing, or a name just past a regime break. The state of the art collapses to a comparable-firm peer beta with no error budget, and the recent text-based competitor Breitung (2025) reports strong empirical IPO accuracy but no identification theory, no error budget, and no lower bound. We fill that gap. We model a large language model as a noisy measurement channel on a firm's latent risk characteristics and write its channel noise into the asset-pricing error budget. In a piecewise-stationary Fama-French five-factor model the loadings are a function of latent risk characteristics and an inferred regime. We prove identification and consistency of the regime-conditional loading function under explicit assumptions on the channel, the detector, and within-regime sampling, and give a matching lower bound showing that the disclosure-noise and detector-misclassification terms are unavoidable for any estimator that observes only returns, factors, LLM features, and a regime estimate. A disclosure-incentive corollary makes estimation precision monotone in a firm-level disclosure-incentive measure (DIM). An adaptive convex combination of the text-based and rolling-window estimators is never worse than either component and shifts its weight toward text exactly when price history is short, stale, or straddles a detected regime break. The empirical evaluation on a frozen, pre-registered panel of price-history-thin firms is forthcoming; this preprint records the theory and the pre-registered design so priority is established independently of the empirical outcome.

q-fin.RM

Pricing the DeFi Tail: Do Protocols or Depositors Price Operational Risk?

Similar to banks, DeFi protocols expose depositors to operational risk (USD 9.45 billion across 1,075 events since 2020). Unlike banks, they are not required to hold capital against it. A protocol may maintain a buffer voluntarily. Absent one, the risk falls on the depositor, who should then demand a risk premium in the supply yield. I quantify the underlying tail on one benchmark, a per-sector Basel loss-distribution approach fitted to a new operational risk event dataset, and test both margins against it. Tails in the four core sectors are no heavier than the Moscadelli banking band $[0.85, 1.39]$. Bridge, Derivatives, and the residual Other sector exhibit cyber-loss-level tails ($\hatξ\approx 1.6$), with point estimates past the infinite-mean boundary. The Lending tail implies a $\mathrm{VaR}_{99.9}$ capital buffer of 18% of TVL and of the ten largest Lending venues, the four holding a buffer cover on average 5% of it. Under market discipline, depositors should demand a higher yield in compensation where a venue does not maintain a buffer. I find that venues without a buffer pay a higher premium than those with (a 125-bps gap in medians): evidence the market discriminates in the right direction. However, the premium falls far short of an adequately priced tail. This unpriced tail falls disproportionately on the retail depositor, who sees only the posted rate but lacks the information and skills to price it. Because these products are not bank-regulated, I recommend disclosure over capital mandates: protocols, and any service providers that front access to it, should publish standardized losses, existing capital buffers and tail coverage.

q-fin.RM

Machine Learning Classification and Portfolio Construction: Does the Loss Function Matter?

Classification outperforms regression across matched machine learning models in portfolio construction. A stacking ensemble of gradient boosted tree, random forest, and neural network yields a value-weighted annualized Sharpe ratio of 2.08 for classification and 1.39 for regression. This outperformance strengthens with class granularity and persists across subsamples and after transaction costs. Spanning tests show that classification retains economically large alphas after we control for regression, whereas regression alphas shrink substantially once we control for classification. These results indicate that classification extracts more return information than matched regression. Our diagnostics trace classification's advantage to more precise separation of return deciles.

q-fin.GN