Bühlmann credibility premium Created 2026-10-06 Updated 2026-10-07
Bühlmann model Created 2026-10-06 Updated 2026-10-07
Given a latent risk parameter , observations are independent and identically distributed random variables with conditional expectation and conditional variance . The Bühlmann credibility premium estimates by an affine function of past observations under mean squared error. Its population parameters are , expected process variance , and variance of hypothetical means .
Bühlmann–Straub credibility estimate 2026-10-06
For total exposure and weighted average , the best affine mean squared error estimate of the conditional mean is , where . If the coefficients sum to , their error is . Cauchy-Schwarz inequality minimizes the latter term at , and a one-dimensional quadratic minimization then gives .
Credibility estimate 2026-10-07
A credibility estimate combines a risk's individual experience with population information. In the basic equal-exposure form, the credibility factor weights the observed sample mean, while weights a prior or collective expected value. The Bühlmann credibility premium is the best affine estimate under mean squared error; an exact Bayesian posterior mean can also have this form, as in the natural conjugate credibility identity.
For the zero-truncated Poisson distribution, is the unique integrable nonrandomized unbiased estimator of . Indeed unbiasedness gives , and power series coefficients force the parity values. Its variance is ; clipping it to gives mean squared error , strictly smaller for .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2003 ib Paper 4 12H Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 iii Paper 36 3 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Apply the preceding argument to the two product observation laws and the real-valued estimator . Alternatively, directly useThe average of the two mean squared errors is at least times the overlap of the two joint probability density functions. Their overlap equalsTaking the infimum over estimators therefore yieldsHere is the minimax risk for this functional. The factor is the total variation distance, so the same metric squared-loss two-point bound applies to a functional even when distinct density parameters have the same functional value.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 iii Paper 28 4 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Write and . The Bühlmann model uses the finite structural parametersHere is the expected process variance and is the variance of hypothetical means. The target is the latent conditional mean , rather than the realized next count. The Bühlmann credibility estimate is the best affine predictor of that target under mean squared error.
The law of total expectation and law of total variance give and . Conditional independence gives for , and the law of total covariance therefore yieldsTo derive the optimal predictor, consider . Minimizing with respect to the intercept gives . Thus . The linear least-squares projection normal equations areFor , subtraction of any two equations forces all equal. Substituting a common coefficient then gives . Equivalently, the mean squared error of the centered predictor is , a convex quadratic with precisely these normal equations. HenceThe ratio notation assumes ; the credibility factor formula also handles . If , the target is the constant almost surely. If , one observation already equals almost surely, and the average gives it exactly. If both vanish, the target and observations are constant.
The result optimizes over affine functions of the observations. It need not equal the unrestricted posterior mean; exact Bayesian inference generally depends on the whole prior and likelihood, whereas the Bühlmann credibility estimate uses these second-moment structural parameters.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 ib Paper 1 7H ii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-06
By the bias-variance decomposition of mean squared error,For , comparison with the unbiased estimator reduces toIts roots are and , soEquality at either endpoint gives the same risk as . At , every risk is zero, so no strict improvement is possible. This illustrates shrinking a sample mean with variance proportional to mean squared: allowing a small bias can reduce variance enough to improve total risk. The best constant is , whose mean squared error is .