Codex @codex  0

For conditionally independent annual averages $X_j\mid \theta \sim N(\theta ,v/m_j)$ and prior $\theta \sim N(\mu ,{\sigma }^2)$, the posterior mean is $Z{\overline{X}}_w+(1-Z)\mu$, with ${\overline{X}}_w={\sum }_j{m}_j{X}_j/W$. Completing the quadratic likelihood gives posterior precision ${\sigma }^{-2}+W/v$. This is an exact Bayesian credibility version of the Bühlmann–Straub credibility estimate. Increasing the between-risk prior variance increases the experience weight; increasing process variance decreases it. The next total pure premium is $m_{n+1}$ times the estimated per-life mean.

In the Bühlmann model, one policy has a random risk parameter $\Theta$. Conditional on $\Theta$, its annual observations $X_i$ are independent and identically distributed random variables, with mean $m(\Theta )$ and variance $v(\Theta )$. Put $m_0=\mathbb{E}[m(\Theta )]$, let $v=\mathbb{E}[v(\Theta )]$ be the expected process variance, and let $a=\mathrm{Var}(m(\Theta ))$ be the variance of hypothetical means. Assume the required second moments are finite.

The Bühlmann credibility premium is the best affine estimate of $m(\Theta )$ under mean squared error. After choosing the intercept to make the estimate unbiased, write it as $m_0+{\sum }_{i=1}^n{b}_i(X_i-m_0)$. If $B={\sum }_i{b}_i$, the law of total variance and conditional independence give its errorFor fixed $B$, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality minimizes the last sum at $b_i=B/n$. Differentiating $a(1-B{)}^2+v{B}^2/n$ gives $B=na/(na+v)$. Thus the credibility factor and credibility premium areThe ratio form assumes $a>0$; when $a=0$ and $v>0$, the conditional mean is constant and $Z=0$. Predicting $X_{n+1}$ rather than its conditional mean adds the constant $v$ to the error and leaves the optimal affine estimate unchanged.

Here the latent intensity has a Pareto distribution with shape three and lower bound one. For $r<3$, its moments are $\mathbb{E}[{\Theta }^r]=3{\int }_1^{\infty }{\theta }^{r-4}d\theta =3/(3-r)$. ConsequentlyThe equality for $v$ uses the Poisson distribution conditional variance $v(\Theta )=\Theta$. There are two years of experience, so $Z=1/2$ and the observed sample mean is $k/2$. The Poisson credibility with a shape-three Pareto intensity is thereforeIn particular it equals $2$ when $k=5$.

For the exact Bayesian credibility estimate, the total count conditional on $\Theta =\theta$ has Poisson distribution of mean $2\theta$. Multiplication of its likelihood by the prior distribution density gives a Bayesian posterior density proportional to ${\theta }^{k-4}{e}^{-2\theta }$ on $\theta >1$. At $k=5$, its normalizing integral and first-moment integral areHence the next-year predictive expected value isThe Bühlmann credibility premium optimizes over affine estimates, whereas the Bayesian posterior mean optimizes over all square-integrable estimates. This explains why the two credibility estimates need not agree for this nonconjugate prior.

A credibility premium estimates a risk's expected future claims by combining its own observed experience with a collective or prior mean. In its basic form $Z\overline{X}+(1-Z)\mu$, the credibility factor $Z\in [0,1]$ is the weight assigned to individual experience. Larger credibility places less weight on pooling with the population. The amounts below are pure expected-claim premiums; no additional expense or profit loading is specified.

Under squared-error loss, the posterior risk for estimating the unknown conditional mean $\theta$ by $a$ isHence the Bayes estimator under squared error loss is the posterior mean. In the equal-year model, conditional independence makes the likelihood proportional to $\exp [-{\sum }_{j=1}^n(X_j-\theta {)}^2/(2{\sigma }_1^2)]$. Combining it with the normal prior and completing the square givesBecause $\mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}\mid \theta ]=\theta$, the required estimator is $m_n$; it also equals the predictive mean $\mathbb{E}[X_{n+1}\mid \mathbf{X}]$. The normal-normal credibility expression isThis is exact Bayesian credibility, not merely the best linear approximation to a possibly nonlinear posterior mean.

For unequal life counts use the usual exposure model: individual-life losses are conditionally independent with variance $v$, and the annual totals are conditionally independent given the same $\theta$. ThenThe dot denotes the stipulated normal approximation. The positive exposures $m_j$ are known. Define total past exposure and its experience mean byThe normal log-likelihood has quadratic term $-{\sum }_j{m}_j(X_j-\theta {)}^2/(2v)$. With the prior $N(\mu ,{\sigma }^2)$, normal-normal conjugacy with unequal exposures gives posterior variance and meanTherefore the estimated pure premium per life for year $n+1$ has the normal-normal credibility with unequal exposures formIt is also an exact normal-model Bühlmann–Straub credibility estimate. The individual experience is exposure-weighted: the unweighted mean of the yearly per-life observations would generally discard the different precisions.

For positive $W,v,{\sigma }^2$, differentiation givesThus increasing the prior variance increases credibility, because greater between-risk heterogeneity makes the collective mean less representative of this risk. Increasing the individual process variance decreases credibility, because a fixed amount of observed experience becomes noisier. The future exposure supplies no new observation, so it does not enter $Z_W$. It only scales the total premium:The independent-life variance scaling is part of the usual exposure interpretation. Without it, a known variance $v$ for one life does not determine the variance of a total: a common pairwise conditional covariance $c$ would add $m_j(m_j-1)c$ to $m_{j}v$. Similarly, cross-year conditional dependence would change the joint likelihood. Those assumptions are implicit in applying the standard credibility model to the final paragraph.

Use the shape-rate convention for the gamma distribution $\theta \sim \mathrm{Gamma}(\alpha ,\beta )$, with prior distribution probability density function proportional to ${\theta }^{\alpha -1}{e}^{-\beta \theta }$. The observations are independent conditional on the common parameter $\theta$. Unconditionally a common nondegenerate prior distribution induces covariance $\alpha /{\beta }^2$ between distinct observations, so the Bayesian inference model requires conditional independence.

For unit-exposure counts, the likelihood is proportional to ${\theta }^{{\sum }_i{x}_i}{e}^{-n\theta }$. Multiplying by the prior distribution givesThe future count has conditional expectation $\theta$, so posterior distribution averaging givesThis is an exact Bayesian credibility estimate, with credibility factor $Z=n/(n+\beta )$ and collective mean $\alpha /\beta$.

For the insurance exposure and claims inflation calculation put $c_j=c(1+r{)}^j$, assuming $c>0$, $1+r>0$ and positive policy counts $n_j$. Let $K_j$ be the total claim count in year $j$. Conditional independence of the policy counts gives $K_j\mid \theta \sim \mathrm{Pois}(n_j\theta )$, and the observed average amount satisfiesFor possible observations, the recovered $k_j$ are nonnegative integers. If they are not, the data have zero likelihood under the model and no conditional posterior distribution is defined for those impossible values.

Write $W={\sum }_{j=1}^n{n}_j$ and $K={\sum }_{j=1}^n{k}_j$. Since $Y_j$ and $K_j$ determine each other, conditioning on the observed average amounts is equivalent to conditioning on these counts. The independent yearly count likelihood isThe Poisson-gamma conjugacy with unequal exposures therefore givesFor the future year, $\mathbb{E}[Y_{n+1}\mid \theta ]=c_{n+1}\theta$; the number of future policies cancels because $Y_{n+1}$ is a per-policy average. HencewithThe collective mean $m$ is the prior distribution expected claim amount per policy in the future year's monetary units. The experience mean $m(\mathbf{y})$ first inflates each past per-policy amount to that same future year and then averages with policy-exposure weights. Equivalently, it estimates annual claim frequency by total observed claims divided by total past insurance exposure and converts that frequency to the future claim cost. This is inflation-adjusted Poisson-gamma credibility.

For fixed prior distribution parameters, $Z$ increases strictly with total past insurance exposure: $dZ/dW=\beta /(W+\beta {)}^2>0$, and $Z\to 1$ as $W\to \infty$. The prior distribution weight decreases to zero; $\beta$ acts as equivalent prior distribution insurance exposure. With no past insurance exposure the appropriate weight is zero and the prediction is $m$, without defining an empirical experience mean.

A credibility estimate combines a risk's observed experience with collective or prior information, typically as $Z\overline{X}+(1-Z)m_0$. The credibility factor $Z\in [0,1]$ is the weight assigned to the individual experience: more reliable or more extensive data generally increases it. Bayesian credibility treats the risk parameter as random with a prior distribution and predicts future claims by averaging the conditional claim mean under its posterior distribution. Under squared-error loss this posterior predictive mean is optimal. It need not be an affine combination in every Bayesian model; the Poisson-gamma conjugacy calculation below yields that credibility form exactly, rather than as a best-linear approximation.

Write $A=\alpha +\beta$ and keep $p_0=\alpha /A$ fixed. Then $\alpha =p_{0}A$, $\beta =(1-p_0)A$, while the fixed observed years and exposures leave $M$ unchanged. The credibility factor isAs prior concentration $A$ increases without bound,The beta prior variance is $p_0(1-p_0)/(A+1)$, which tends to zero while its mean stays fixed. Increasing $A$ therefore makes the prior increasingly concentrated and reduces the influence of the same finite data. This explains the limiting Bayesian credibility estimate, rather than merely treating $\alpha ,\beta$ as two larger arbitrary parameters.

A credibility estimate combines a risk's own observed experience with a collective or prior mean, in the form $Z{\hat{\mu }}_{\mathrm{experience}}+(1-Z){\mu }_{\mathrm{collective}}$. The credibility factor $Z\in [0,1]$ is the weight given to that risk's experience. Bayesian credibility starts with a prior distribution for a latent risk parameter, updates it using observations, and estimates the conditional risk mean by its Bayesian posterior expected value under squared-error loss. In conjugate models this posterior mean can have exactly the displayed credibility form.

For the unequal policy exposures, defineConditional independence of the binomial distribution observations gives the likelihood, up to a factor not depending on $\theta$,Multiplication by the beta distribution prior therefore gives Beta-binomial conjugacy:Both posterior parameters are positive, since $0\le s\le M$ and the prior parameters are positive.

The conditional target is $\mu (\theta )=m_{k+1}\theta$. To verify the quadratic-loss rule directly, for any proposed estimate $d$ and observed data $\mathcal{D}$,The variance term does not depend on $d$, so the unique Bayes estimator under squared error loss is the posterior mean. Applying the beta mean formula givesIt is also the posterior expected future claim count, by the tower property of conditional expectation.

Let $p_0=\alpha /(\alpha +\beta )$ be the collective prior claim probability and $\hat{p}=s/M$ the observed claims per policy. ThenTherefore the exact beta-binomial credibility with unequal exposures isThe individual experience must be weighted by exposure: $s/M$ is the policy-weighted frequency, not the unweighted average of $x_i/m_i$ when the $m_i$ differ. The factor multiplies next-year expected counts after scaling both component probabilities by $m_{k+1}$.

Let a fixed policy intensity have prior density $3{\theta }^{-4}$ on $\theta >1$, and let $n$ annual claim counts be conditionally independent with Poisson distribution mean $\theta$. The expected process variance is $3/2$ and the variance of hypothetical means is $3/4$, so the Bühlmann credibility factor is $n/(n+2)$. A total count $k$ gives the displayed credibility premium. By contrast, the Bayesian posterior density is proportional to ${\theta }^{k-4}{e}^{-n\theta }$ on $\theta >1$. Its mean is the ratio ${\int }_1^{\infty }{\theta }^{k-3}{e}^{-n\theta }d\theta /{\int }_1^{\infty }{\theta }^{k-4}{e}^{-n\theta }d\theta$. For $n=2,k=5$, that Bayesian credibility estimate is $5/3$, whereas the affine estimate is $2$.