Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
Variance
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Actuarial
    • Capital Management
    • Claim Management
    • Data Management and Information
    • Discussion
    • Financial and Statistical Methods
    • Other
    • Ratemaking and Product Information
    • Reserving
    • Risk Management
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • Archives
  • Variance Prize
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

https://variancejournal.org/feed
Discussion
Vol. 18, 2025September 03, 2025 EDT

Corrigendum: Applications of Gaussian-Inverse Wishart Process Regression Models in Claims Reserving

Marco De Virgilis, Giulio Carnevale,
ReservingMachine learningGaussian processesInverse Wishart
Photo by Sam Moghadam on Unsplash
Variance
De Virgilis, Marco, and Giulio Carnevale. 2025. “Corrigendum: Applications of Gaussian-Inverse Wishart Process Regression Models in Claims Reserving.” Variance 18 (September).
Save article as...▾
Download all (5)
  • Figure 8. EMC PA—total reserve distribution.
    Download
  • Figure 9. EMC OL—total reserve distribution.
    Download
  • Figure 10. CC WC—total reserve distribution.
    Download
  • Figure 11. PRI MM—total reserve distribution.
    Download
  • Figure 12. HNI CA—total reserve distribution.
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

After publication, the authors discovered a minor bug in the code used to produce the results published in “Applications of Gaussian-Inverse Wishart Process Regression Models in Claims Reserving.”

This bug resulted in a numerical error in the data presented in Table 4 and slight alterations in the graphs shown in Figures 8 to 12. While these corrections affect some reported values, they do not impact the methodology or the overall conclusions of the paper.

The revised table, along with updated commentary and code, has been uploaded to the GitHub repository (https://github.com/marcopark90/GaussianProcesses). It is also presented here.

Table 4.Revised GPR and ODP results
Triangle Obs GPR ODP RMSE GPR RMSE ODP Obs. Percentile GPR Obs. Percentile ODP
EMC PA 68,330 67,698 70,711 632 2,381 0.45 0.33
EMC OL 158,514 163,419 134,554 4,905 23,960 0.35 0.95
CC WC 130,095 123,931 127,603 6,164 2,492 0.56 0.65
PRI MM 407,525 425,707 751,244 18,182 343,719 0.59 0.00
HNI CA 28,527 27,055 30,101 1,472 1,574 0.54 0.34

Commentary

It is worth noting that even in the most divergent case, the GPR absolute percentage error on the observed values is 4.7%, compared to 1.9% for the ODP. The two methodologies yield reasonably similar results.

EMC PA
Figure 8.EMC PA—total reserve distribution.
EMC OL
Figure 9.EMC OL—total reserve distribution.
CC WC
Figure 10.CC WC—total reserve distribution.
PRI MM
Figure 11.PRI MM—total reserve distribution.
HNI CA
Figure 12.HNI CA—total reserve distribution.

Submitted: July 15, 2025 EDT

Accepted: August 04, 2025 EDT

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system