risks

Article
Predicting Motor Insurance Claims Using Telematics
Data—XGBoost versus Logistic Regression
Jessica Pesantez-Narvaez , Montserrat Guillen * and Manuela Alcañiz
Department of Econometrics, Riskcenter-IREA, Universitat de Barcelona, 08034 Barcelona, Spain;
jessica.pesantez@ub.edu (J.P.-N.); malcaniz@ub.edu (M.A.)
* Correspondence: mguillen@ub.edu; Tel.: +34-934-037-039




Received: 9 May 2019; Accepted: 12 June 2019; Published: 20 June 2019


Abstract: XGBoost is recognized as an algorithm with exceptional predictive capacity. Models for a
binary response indicating the existence of accident claims versus no claims can be used to identify
the determinants of traffic accidents. This study compared the relative performances of logistic
regression and XGBoost approaches for predicting the existence of accident claims using telematics
data. The dataset contained information from an insurance company about the individuals’ driving
patterns—including total annual distance driven and percentage of total distance driven in urban
areas. Our findings showed that logistic regression is a suitable model given its interpretability
and good predictive capacity. XGBoost requires numerous model-tuning procedures to match the
predictive performance of the logistic regression model and greater effort as regards to interpretation.

Keywords: dichotomous response; predictive model; tree boosting; GLM; machine learning

1. Introduction
Predicting the occurrence of accident claims in motor insurance lies at the heart of premium
calculation, but with the development of new artificial intelligence methods, the question of choosing
a suitable model has yet to be completely solved. In this article, the recently proposed methods of
XGBoost (Chen and Guestrin 2016) and logistic regression are considered and compared regarding
their predictive performance in a sample of insured drivers, along with their telematic information.
The advantages and disadvantages of XGBoost compared to logistic regression are discussed
and this study showed that a slightly improved predictive power is only obtained with the XGBoost
method, but this has complicated the interpretation of the impact of covariates on the expected response.
In the case of automobile insurance, where the premium calculation is regulated and has to be fully
specified, the weight of each risk factor in the final price needs to be disclosed and the connection
between the observed covariate value and the estimated probability of a claim needs to be shown.
If these conditions are not met, the regulating authority may deny the insurance company the right to
commercialize that product. This study discussed, nevertheless, why the use of an XGBoost algorithm
remains interesting for actuaries and how methods both old and new might be combined for optimum
results. This study does not examine any other boosting methods. However, excellent descriptions
can be found in Lee and Lin (2018), while extensions to high dimensional datasets are presented in
Lee and Antonio (2015), both of which presented cases studies of insurance applications. Many of
those alternatives placed their emphasis on algorithm speed, but in terms of their essential setups they
do not differ greatly from XGBoost.
To compare the two competing methods, a real dataset comprising of motor insurance policy
holders and their telematics measurements were used, that is, real-time driving information collected
and stored via telecommunication devices. More specifically, GPS-based technology captures an
insured’s driving behavior patterns, including distance travelled, driving schedules, and driving speed,

Risks 2019, 7, 70; doi:10.3390/risks7020070 www.mdpi.com/journal/risks

Risks 2019, 7, 70 2 of 16

among many others. Here, pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) insurance schemes represent an alternative method
for pricing premiums based on personal mileage travelled and driving behaviors. Guillen et al. (2019),
Verbelen et al. (2018), and Pérez-Marín and Guillén (2019) showed the potential benefits of analyzing
telematics information when calculating motor insurance premiums. Gao and Wüthrich (2019)
analyzed high-frequency GPS location data (second per second) of individual car drivers and trips.
Gao and Wüthrich (2018) and Gao et al. (2019) investigated the predictive power of covariates extracted
from telematics car driving data using the speed-acceleration heatmaps proposed by Wüthrich (2017).
Further, Hultkrantz et al. (2012) highlighted the importance of PAYD insurance plans insofar as they
allow insurance companies to personalize premium calculation and, so, charge fairer rates.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, the notation is introduced and the logistic
regression and XGBoost methods are outlined. Second, our dataset is described and some descriptive
statistics are provided. Third, the results of our comparisons in both a training and a testing sample are
reported. Finally, following the conclusion, some practical suggestions are offered about the feasibility
of applying new machine learning methods to the field of insurance.

2. Methodology Description
In a data set of n individuals and P covariates, there is a binary response variable Yi , i = 1, . . . ,
n taking values 0, 1; and a set of covariates denoted as Xip , p = 1, . . . , P. The conditional probability
density function of Yi = t (t = 0, 1) given Xi (Xi1 , . . . , XiP ), is denoted as ht (Xi ). Equivalently, it can be
said that Prob(Yi = t) = ht (Xi ), and that E(Yi ) = Prob(Yi = 1) = h1 (Xi ).

2.1. Logistic Regression

Logistic regression, a widely recognized regression method for predicting the expected
outcome of a binary dependent variable, is specified by a given set of predictor variables.
McCullagh and Nelder (1989) presented the logistic regression model as part of a wider class of
generalized linear models. A logistic regression is distinguished from a classical linear regression
model primarily because the response variable is binary rather than continuous in nature.
The logistic regression uses the logit function as a canonical link function, in other words, the log
ratio of the probability functions ht (Xi ) is a linear function of X; that is:

h1 (Xi ) Prob(Yi = 1) XP
ln = ln = β0 + Xip βp , (1)
h0 (Xi ) Prob(Yi = 0) p=1

where β0 , β1 , . . . , βP are the model coefficients1 , and Prob(Yi = 1) is the probability of observing the
event in the response (response equal to 1), and Prob(Yi = 0) is the probability of not observing the
event in the response (response equal to 0).
The link function provides the relationship between the linear predictor η = β0 + Pp=1 Xip βp
P

and the mean of the response given certain covariates. In a logistic regression model, the expected
response is:
PP
β0 + p=1 Xip βp
e
E(Yi ) = Prob(Yi = 1) = PP . (2)
β0 + p=1 Xip βp
1+e
A logistic regression can be estimated by the maximum likelihood (for further details see,
for example, Greene 2002). Therefore, the idea underlying a logistic regression model is that there must
be a linear combination of risk factors that is related to the probability of observing an event. The data
analyst’s task is to find the fitted coefficients that best estimate the linear combination in (2) and to
interpret the relationship between the covariates and the expected response. In a logistic regression

1 Note we have opted to refer here to coefficients as opposed to parameters to avoid confusion with the values defined below
when describing the XGBoost method.
 Risks 2019, 7, 70 3 of 16

model, a positive estimated coefficient indicates a positive association. Thus, when the corresponding
covariate increases, the probability of the event response also increases. If the estimated coefficient is
Risks 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16
negative, then the association is negative and, therefore, the probability of the event decreases when
the observed value of the corresponding covariate increases. Odds-ratios can be calculated as the
exponential values of the fitted coefficients and they can also be directly interpreted as the change in
exponential values of the fitted coefficients and they can also be directly interpreted as the change in
odds when the corresponding factor increases by one unit.
odds when the corresponding factor increases by one unit.
Apart from their interpretability, the popularity of logistic regression models is based on two
Apart from their interpretability, the popularity of logistic regression models is based on two
characteristics: (i) The maximum likelihood estimates are easily found; and (ii) the analytical form of
characteristics: (i) The maximum likelihood estimates are easily found; and (ii) the analytical form of
the link function in (2) always provides predictions between 0 and 1 that can be directly interpreted
the link function in (2) always provides predictions between 0 and 1 that can be directly interpreted
as the event probability estimate. For these motives, logistic regression has become one of the most
as the event probability estimate. For these motives, logistic regression has become one of the most
popular classifiers, their results providing a straightforward method for predicting scores or
popular classifiers, their results providing a straightforward method for predicting scores or propensity
propensity values which, in turn, allow new observations to be classified to one of the two classes in
values which, in turn, allow new observations to be classified to one of the two classes in the response.
the response. For R users, the glm function is the most widely used procedure for obtaining coefficient
For R users, the glm function is the most widely used procedure for obtaining coefficient estimates and
estimates and their standard errors, but alternatively, a simple optimization routine can easily be
their standard errors, but alternatively, a simple optimization routine can easily be implemented.
implemented.
2.2. XGBoost
Risks2.2. XGBoost
2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
Chen and Guestrin (2016) proposed XGBoost as an alternative method for predicting a response
Chen given
that variable
is associated and with
Guestrin
certain (2016)
l2-norm of proposed
the scores
covariates. The XGBoost
vector,
main idea as underpinning
which an alternative
is a way ofmethod evaluating
this for predicting
algorithm the is thataitresponse
magnitude of D
builds
variable
scores. given
Including and
classification certain covariates.
this regression
norm, or trees The
any other main
(or CARTs) idea
similarone underpinning
expression,
by one, sopenalizes this algorithm
that each excessive
subsequent is that
sizesit in
model builds
(tree)Dis
the
classification
components
trained using of 𝑤. andtheregression
residuals of treesthe(or CARTs)
previous oneInbyother
tree. one, words,
so that the each newsubsequent
model corrects modelthe (tree) is
errors
trained
It is noted
made
using
by the
thepruning
that residuals
previously is aofmachine
trained
thetree previous
learning
and
tree.
then technique
In otherwhich
predicts the
words,
outcome.
the new
reduces themodel
size ofcorrects
a decision thetreeerrors
made by the previously trained tree and then predicts the outcome.
by removing In thedecision
XGBoost,nodes each ensemble model2 uses the
whose corresponding features
sum of D have little influence
functions to predict the on output:
the final
In the XGBoost, each ensemble
prediction of the target variable. This procedure model 2 uses the sum of D functions to predict the output:
XD reduces the complexity of the model and, thus,
corrects overfitting. 𝑌Ŷi == ₣(𝑋 (Xi))== ∑ 𝑓f (𝑋 (Xi),), 𝑓fd𝜖∈Ϝ,F,𝑖 i==1,1,…. ., .𝑛, n (3)(3)
d=1 d
The l2-norm is used in the L23 or Ridge regularization method, while the l1-norm is used in the
where Ϝ is the function space3 of the CART models, and each 𝑓 corresponds to an independent
L1 orwhere
LassoF regularization
is the function space method. of Both
the CART methodsmodels, can and takeeach
the Tikhonov
f corresponds or the Ivanov
to an form (see
independent CART
CART structure which is denoted as q. In other words, q is the dset of rules of an independent CART
Tikhonov and Arsenin 1977; Ivanov et al. 2013).
structure which is denoted as q. In other words, q is the set of rules of an independent CART that
that classifies each individual i into one leaf. The training phase involves classifying n observations
classifies each individual i into one leaf. The training phase involves classifying n observations so that,
so A
2.2.1. that, given
Closer the covariates
Look at theX, X, each
XGBoost leaf has a score
Minimization that corresponds to the proportion of cases which
Algorithm
given the covariates each leaf has a score that corresponds to the proportion of cases which are
are classified into the response event for that combination of 𝑋 . This score is denoted as 𝑤 ( ) .
classified
A loss into theorresponse
function event forlike
a cost function that(4)combination how of X . Thisascore is denoted as wq(Xfits
) . ofthe
Thus, q can be written as a function q: ℝPmeasures
→ T, where i Twell is thepredictive
total number algorithm
of leaves a tree
observed Thus,
responses q can be
in a written
data setas a
(for function
further q: R
details, → seeT, where
Friedman T isettheal.total
2001). number
For of leaves
instance, in of
a a tree and j
binary
and j is later used to denote a particular leaf, j = 1, …, T. To calculate the final prediction for each
is later used to denote
classification a particular lossleaf, j = 1, .is. .suitable
, T. To calculate the final prediction for is each individual,
individual,problem, the scorethe of logistic
the leaves function
are summed as in (3), because
where the Ϝ =probability
{f(X) = 𝑤 ( score bounded
) }, with q: ℝ →TT,
the score of1.the
between leaves are summed as in (3), where F = {f (X) = wq(X) }, with P
q: R →can T, and w∈R .
and 𝑤0 𝜖and ℝ . Then, by selecting a suitable threshold, a binary outcome prediction be found.
Various In In
loss general,
functions boosting
have been methods
proposed fit D models
in the literature, in D iterations
including: (each iteration denoted by d, d = 1,
general, boosting methods fit D models in D iterations (eachThe squaredenoted
iteration loss; theby hinge
d, d loss
= 1, …,
. . . , D)and
(Steinwart in reweighted
Christmann versions.
2008); theWeighting
logistic is a(Schapire
loss mechanism and that
Freundpenalizes 2012); the
theincorrect
cross predictions
entropy loss of
D) in reweighted versions. Weighting is a mechanism that penalizes the incorrect predictions of past
past
(Demodels, models,
Boer et al. in
2005);to order
and to improve
the exponential the new models.
loss (Elliott The weighting
and Timmermann structures
2003). are generally optimal
in order improve the new models. The weighting structures are generally optimal values,
values,
The which underpinning
intuition are adjusted once the aregularization
loss function proposedis minimized. in (4)Then,
involves newreducing
learners incorporate
the magnitude the new
which are adjusted once a loss function is minimized. Then, new learners incorporate the new
of 𝑤, weighting
so that the structure
procedure in each iteration,
caniteration,
avoid the and predict new
problem outcomes.
weighting structure in each and predictof newoverfitting.
outcomes.The larger the ή, the smaller the
variability In particular, the XGBoost method minimizes a regularized objective function, i.e., the loss function
In of the scoresthe
particular, (Goodfellow
XGBoost method et al. 2016).
minimizes a regularized objective function, i.e., the loss
plus the
The objective regularization
function term:
at the d-th iteration is:
function plus the regularization term:
Xn ( ) XD
ℒ ( ) = ∑L =ℒ ℓ= 𝑌 ∑ , 𝑌 `ℓ(Y +i+)𝑓+
𝑌 i, ,𝑌Ŷ ∑(𝑋 )ή(𝑓 +),ή(𝑓 ( fd )),, (5) (4)(4)
i=1 d=1
where( ℓ is
) a convex loss function that measures the difference between the observed response 𝑌
where 𝑌 is the prediction of the i-th observation at the (d − 1)-th iteration. It is noted that ℓ(·,·)
and predicted response
is generally a distance
2
and ή = µT+
so its𝑌components can 𝜆‖𝑤‖ , ή is the
be swapped, i.e.,regularization
ℓ 𝑌 , 𝑌 = ℓ 𝑌term also known
, 𝑌 . Following as the
Chen
Natekinpenalty
and Knoll (2013)penalizes
explain thatthe
the complexity
ensemble modelof can be understood as a committee formed of
by overfitting.
a group of base
andshrinkage
Guestrin
learners(2016),
or weak it
which
is assumed
learners. Thus, anythat the
weak losscan
learner function the
is amodel
be introduced
and avoids
symmetric the problem
function.
as a boosting framework. Various boosting methods have
The
Duetree
been pruning
to the parameter
non-linearities
proposed, including: inµthe
(B/P-) regulates
objective
splines thefunction
(Huang depth
and Yang oftothe tree and
belinear
2004); minimized, 𝜆 is
andpenalized
thethe regularization
XGBoost
models parameter
is anetalgorithm
(Hastie al. 2009); decision
trees (James et al. 2013); radial basis functions (Gomez-Verdejo et al. 2005); and Markov random fields (Dietterich et al. 2008).
that usesAlthough
a second-order Taylor approximation of the objective function ℒ in (5) as follows:
Chen and Guestrin (2016) state f as a CART model, the R package xgboost currently performs three boosters:
k
linear, tree and dart. ( )
2 Natekin
3 ℒ ( )in(2013)
and works
The XGBoost Knoll ∑ explain
≅a function
[ ℓspace
𝑌 that
, rather
𝑌 thethan+in𝑔a 𝑓parameter
ensemble (𝑋 ) + space.
model ℎ 𝑓be
can (𝑋framework
)] + ή(𝑓allows
understood
This as),a committee formed
the objective (6) bytoabe
function
group of base
customized learners or weak learners. Thus, any weak learner can be introduced as a boosting framework.
accordingly.
( ) ( )
𝑔 = 𝜕boosting
where Various ( ) ℓ methods
𝑌 , 𝑌 have and ℎ = 𝜕 (including:
been proposed, ) ℓ 𝑌,𝑌 denote
(B/P-) splines theandfirst
(Huang Yangand
2004);second
linear and
penalized models (Hastie et al. 2009); decision trees (James et al. 2013);
derivatives of the loss function ℓ with respect to the component corresponding to the predicted radial basis functions (Gomez-
Verdejo et al. 2005); and Markov random fields (Dietterich et al. 2008). Although Chen and Guestrin (2016)
classifier.
state 𝑓 as a CART model, the R package xgboost currently performs three boosters: linear, tree and dart.
Since the authors minimized (6) with respect to 𝑓 , this expression can be simplified by
3 The XGBoost works in a function space rather than in a parameter space. This framework allows the
removing the constant terms as follows:
Risks 2019, 7, 70 4 of 16

where
Risks ` is
2019, 7, a convex
x FOR PEERloss function
REVIEW that measures the difference between the observed response Y4i of and16
predicted response Ŷi and ή = µT + 12 λkwk22 , ή is the regularization term also known as the shrinkage
that is associated
penalty with l2-norm
which penalizes of the scores
the complexity of thevector,
modelwhich is a way
and avoids the of evaluating
problem the magnitude
of overfitting. of
The tree
scores.
pruningIncluding
parameterthis µ regulates
norm, orthe any other
depth of similar and λ is thepenalizes
the tree expression, excessive
regularization sizes in
parameter thattheis
components
associated with of 𝑤.l2-norm of the scores vector, which is a way of evaluating the magnitude of scores.
It is noted
Including that pruning
this norm, is a machine
or any other learning technique
similar expression, penalizeswhich reduces
excessive the
sizes insize
the of a decision of
components tree
w.
by removing
It is noted decision
that pruning nodes whose corresponding
is a machine learning technique features
whichhave little
reduces the influence on thetree
size of a decision final
by
prediction of the target
removing decision nodesvariable. This procedure
whose corresponding reduces
features havethe complexity
little influence ofon the model
the final and, thus,
prediction of
corrects
the targetoverfitting.
variable. This procedure reduces the complexity of the model and, thus, corrects overfitting.
Risks 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
The
The l2-norm
l2-norm is is used in the L2 or Ridge regularization method, method, whilewhile the
the l1-norm
l1-norm is used in the
L1 or Lasso
that isregularization
associated with method.
l2-norm Both
Both methods
scorescan
methods
of the can take the
the Tikhonov
takewhich
vector, is a way or
Tikhonov of the
or the Ivanov the
evaluating form (see
magnitude of
Tikhonov and Arsenin 1977; Ivanov et al. 2013).
2013).
scores. Including this norm, or any other similar expression, penalizes excessive sizes in the
components of 𝑤.
2.2.1. A A Closer
Closer Look Look at at the
the XGBoost
XGBoost Minimization Algorithm
It is noted that pruning is a machine learning technique which reduces the size of a decision tree
A loss function ordecision
by removing
function a cost function nodes whose like (4)corresponding
measures howfeatures well a predictive have littlealgorithm algorithm
influencefitsonthe the final
observed responsesofinthe
prediction a data targetset (for furtherThis
variable. details,procedure see Friedman reduces et the
al. 2001).
complexity For instance, in
For instance, in a binary thus,
of the a
model binaryand,
Risks 2019,
classification 7, x
corrects
classification FOR PEER
problem, REVIEW
overfitting.
problem, logistic loss function
the logistic function is suitable because the probability score is bounded 4 of 16
between 0 and
between Then, by
The1.l2-norm
Then, by selecting
isselecting
used in the aa suitable
suitable
L2 or Ridge threshold,
threshold, regularizationaa binary
binary outcome outcome
method, prediction prediction
while the l1-norm can be
can be found.
found.
is used in the
that is associated
Various loss functions withhave l2-norm been ofproposed
the scores in vector,
the which including:
literature, is a way ofThe evaluatingsquare the the
loss; magnitude
hinge of
L1 or Lasso regularization method. Both methods including:
proposed can take the Tikhonov or Ivanovloss form (see
scores. Tikhonov
Includingand thisArsenin
norm, 1977; or any otheret similar expression, penalizes excessive sizes in the
(Steinwart and Christmann 2008); theIvanov logistic loss al. 2013).(Schapire and Freund 2012); the cross entropy loss
components of 𝑤. and the exponential loss (Elliott and Timmermann 2003).
(De Boer et al. 2005); Timmermann 2003).
It is2.2.1.
The noted A that
intuition Closer pruning
Look at
underpinning is athe machine
XGBoost
the learning
regularization Minimization technique
proposed which
Algorithm reduces the
in (4) involves size ofthe
reducing a decision
magnitude tree
by removing decision nodes canwhose corresponding features have Thelittle influence e, theon the final
𝑤, so
of w, so that
that the the procedure
procedure avoid the problem of overfitting. The larger
larger
wellofa the
the ή, smaller the
prediction ofA the loss function
target or a cost
variable. This
(Goodfellow et al. 2016).
function
procedure likereduces(4) measures the how
complexity predictive
the model algorithm
and, thus, fits the
variability of the scores
correctsobserved
overfitting. responses in a data set (for further details, see Friedman et al. 2001). For instance, in a binary
Theclassification
objective function problem, at the d-th iteration is:
The l2-norm is used in thethe L2logistic
or Ridge loss function
regularization is suitable
method,because while the thel1-norm
probability is used score inisthebounded
between 0 and 1. Then, by selectingn a (
suitable ) threshold, a binary outcome prediction can be found.
ℒ ((d)) = = ∑ Both ℓ`methods
(Y𝑌i ,, 𝑌Ŷi can
(d−1) + 𝑓
fd(𝑋 (Xi)the
)) + ή(𝑓
( fd )),,
X
L1 or Lasso regularization method. L + take +Tikhonov or the Ivanov form (5) (see
(5)
Tikhonov Various
and Arseninloss functions1977; Ivanov have been =proposed
et ial. 1
2013). in the literature, including: The square loss; the hinge loss
(
(Steinwart) and Christmann 2008); the logistic loss (Schapire and Freund It2012); the cross entropy loss
where 𝑌 (d−1) is the prediction of the i-th observation at the (d − 1)-th iteration. is noted that ℓ(·,·)
where Ŷ(De Boer is the
et prediction
al. 2005); and ofthethe i-th
exponential observation loss at
(Elliott the and (d − 1)-th
Timmermann iteration. 2003). It is noted that
2.2.1.
is A Closer
generally i Look at so
a distance theits XGBoost
components Minimization can be swapped, Algorithmi.e., ℓ 𝑌 , 𝑌 = ℓ 𝑌 , 𝑌 . Following Chen
`(·, ·) is generally The a distance
intuition so
underpinning its components theloss can
regularization be swapped, i.e., ` ( Y , Ŷ ) = ` ( Ŷ , Y ) . Following
is aproposed in function.
(4) involves reducing the magnitude
i i i i
and Guestrin (2016), itoris aassumed that the (4)function symmetric
ChenAand lossGuestrin
of 𝑤,
function
so that (2016),
the
cost
procedure
function
it is assumed can
like the
that
avoid the
measures
loss function
problem
how
of awell
isoverfitting. a predictive
symmetric function. algorithm fits the
Due to
observed the non-linearities
responses in a data set in(for the further
objective function
details, see to be minimized,
Friedman et al. theThe
2001). XGBoost
For
largeristhe
instance, an inή, the smaller the
algorithm
a binary
Due to the
variability non-linearities
of the scores in the
(Goodfellowobjective function
et al. to be minimized, the XGBoost is an algorithm
that uses
classification a second-order
problem, the Taylorlogistic approximation
loss functionof ofis2016).
the objective
suitable because function ℒ in (5) as follows:
the probability score is bounded
that uses a second-order
The objectiveTaylor function approximation
at the d-th iteration the objective
is: function L in (5) as follows:
between 0 and 1. Then, ( ) by selecting a (
suitable ) threshold, a binary outcome prediction can be found.
ℒ ≅ ∑ Xn [ ℓ 𝑌 (, 𝑌) + 𝑔 𝑓 (𝑋 )( + ) ℎ 𝑓 (𝑋 )] + ή(𝑓 ), (6)
in∑)the 1+ 𝑓 2(𝑋 ) The
[`(ℒ Yi , Ŷ= ℓgi f𝑌 , 𝑌 + ή(𝑓 ),
Various loss functions (d−1
L(have
d)
 been proposed i
) + literature,
d ( X i ) + including:
h f
i d) ( X i )]+ square
( fd ) , loss; the hinge loss (6) (5)
( i=) 1 2( Freund
(Steinwart
where 𝑔 and = 𝜕 Christmann
( ) ℓ 𝑌 , 𝑌 2008); the and logisticℎ =loss 𝜕 ((Schapire ) ℓ 𝑌 , 𝑌and denote 2012); the
the cross
first entropy
and secondloss
( )
(De Boer where 𝑌
et al. 2005); and
is the (the
d−1 )exponential
prediction of the lossi-th (Elliott
observationand
(d−1)Timmermann at the (d − 1)-th 2003).iteration. It is noted that ℓ(·,·)
where gi = ∂of(d−1
derivatives ) `loss
the (Yi , Ŷ function ) and ℓ hwith
i = ∂respect
2 ` (Y toi , theŶi component ) denote the corresponding
first and second to the predicted
derivatives of
Theisintuition
generally
ŷi underpinning i
a distance sothe its regularization
components (
Ŷi
d−1)
can be swapped,
proposed i.e., ℓ 𝑌 ,reducing
in (4) involves 𝑌 = ℓ 𝑌the , 𝑌 magnitude
. Following Chen
classifier.
of 𝑤,
the loss function
soand the`procedure
thatGuestrin with respect
(2016), itcanistoassumed
the component
avoid thethat problemthecorresponding
lossoffunction
overfitting. istoa the
The predicted
symmetric larger the classifier.
ή, the smaller the
function.
Since the authors minimized (6) with respect to 𝑓 , this expression can be simplified by
Since the
variability ofDue authors
the theminimized
scores
to (Goodfellow
non-linearities (6) with
etinal.therespect
2016).
objective to fdfunction
, this expression to be minimized,can be simplified the XGBoost by removing
is an algorithm
removing the constant terms as follows:
the constant
Thethat terms
objective as
uses a function follows:
second-order at theTaylor d-th iteration
approximation is: of the objective function ℒ in (5) as follows:
ℒ( ) = ∑ [𝑔 𝑓 (𝑋 ( ( ) )1 𝑓 (𝑋 )] + ή(𝑓 ).
) + ℎ (7)
( ((d) )) ∑ n
ℒLℒ ≅== ∑ [ ℓ[ℓgi𝑌f𝑌,(𝑌 , 𝑌 + 𝑔
𝑓 𝑓(X(𝑋
2(𝑋 ) +) +ή(𝑓 ℎ)),.𝑓 (𝑋 )] + ή(𝑓 ),
X
X i ) + h i f i )]+ ( f (5)
(7) (6)
d d d
Substituting the shrinkage penaltyi=ή1 of (4) in (7),2 the authors obtained:
( ) ( ) ( )
where 𝑌where
Substituting is 𝑔the = 𝜕 ( ) ℓ of𝑌 ,the
theprediction
shrinkage ( )
𝑌 i-th observation
penalty of
and ℎ = at𝜕 the
(4) in (7), the ( (d
authors ) ℓ− 1)-th𝑌 , 𝑌 iteration.
obtained:
denoteIt is noted the first that andℓ(·,·) second
ℒ = ∑ [𝑔 𝑓 (𝑋 ) + ℎ 𝑓 (𝑋 )]+ µT+ 𝜆‖𝑤‖ .
ή (8)
is generally a distance
derivatives of the so its function ℓ can
losscomponents withberespect swapped, to the ℓ 𝑌 , 𝑌 = ℓcorresponding
i.e.,component 𝑌 , 𝑌 . Following to theChen predicted
and Guestrin
Theclassifier.
l2-norm (2016),
shown it isL assumed
in (d(8)
Xn
) is equivalentthat the loss
to the 1sum of
function 2 is the a symmetric
squared 1weights
function.2 of all T leafs. Therefore
= [ gi fd (Xi ) + hi fd (Xi )]+uT + λkwk2 . (8)
(8) is Due
expressedto the
Since non-linearities
as: the authorsinminimized thei=objective
1
(6)function
with 2 respect to 𝑓 ,2thisthe
to be minimized, XGBoost iscan
expression an algorithm
be simplified by
that uses a second-order
removing the constant Taylorterms as follows: of the objective function ℒ in (5) as follows:
approximation
ℒ ( ) = ∑ [𝑔 𝑓 (𝑋 ) + ℎ 𝑓 (𝑋 )]+ µT+ 𝜆 ∑ 𝑤 . (9)
( ) ( ) ( )
ℒ ≅ ∑ [ ℓ ℒ𝑌 , 𝑌= ∑ +[𝑔 𝑔 𝑓𝑓 (𝑋 ) + ℎ 𝑓 (𝑋 )] + ή(𝑓 ). ), (6) (7)
The definition of 𝐼 = {i|q(𝑋 )}, 𝐼 is the set of observations that are classified into one leaf j, j = 1,
…, T. Each
where 𝑔 = 𝐼Substituting
receives
𝜕 ( ) ℓthe 𝑌the,same
(
𝑌 shrinkage
)
leaf weight
and ℎ 𝑤
penalty ή of
= . 𝜕Therefore,(
(4) in (7),
) ℓ 𝑌,𝑌
ℒ ( ()thein)authors
(9) denote
can also be seen
obtained:
the firstas and an objective
second
function that corresponds to each set 𝐼 . In this sense, the 𝑓 (𝑋 ) , which is assigned to the
derivatives of the loss function ℒℓ( with )
= ∑respect [𝑔 𝑓to(𝑋the ) +component ℎ 𝑓 (𝑋 )]+ µT+ 𝜆‖𝑤‖ . to the predicted
corresponding (8)
classifier.
Since the Theauthors
l2-normminimized shown in (8)(6) is equivalent
with respect to the to sum 𝑓 , thisof the squared weights
expression can beofsimplified all T leafs. by Therefore
Risks 2019, 7, 70 5 of 16

The l2-norm shown in (8) is equivalent to the sum of the squared weights of all T leafs. Therefore
(8) is expressed as:
Xn 1 1 XT
L(d) = [ gi fd (Xi ) + hi fd 2 (Xi )]+uT + λ w2 . (9)
i=1 2 2 j=1 j

The definition of I j = {i|q(Xi )}, I j is the set of observations that are classified into one leaf j, j = 1,
. . . , T. Each I j receives the same leaf weight w j . Therefore, L(d) in (9) can also be seen as an objective
function that corresponds to each set I j . In this sense, the fd (Xi ), which is assigned to the observations,
corresponds to the weight wj that is assigned to each set I j . Therefore (9) is expressed as:

XT " X !
1 X
! #
L(d) = gi w j + hi + λ w2j + uT. (10)
j=1 i∈I j 2 i∈I j

In order to find the optimal leaf weight w∗j , the authors derived (10) with respect to w j , let the new
equation be equal to zero, and cleared the value of w∗j . Then the authors obtained:
P
i∈I j gi
w∗j = −P . (11)
i∈I j hi + λ

The (10) was updated by replacing the new w∗j . The next boosting iteration minimized the following
objective function:
 P ! P !2 
PT P  i∈I j gi   i∈I j gi
L̂(d) + 2 i∈I j hi + λ −
1 P

= j=1  i∈I j gi −  + uT
i∈I j hi +λ i∈I j hi +λ
P P

P 2 (12)
i∈I j gi
1 Pn
= −2 i=1
P  + uT.
i∈I j hi + λ

Once the best objective function has been defined and the optimal leaf weights assigned to I j ,
the best split procedure is considered. As (12) is derived for a wide range of functions, the authors
were not able to identify all possible tree structures q in each boosting iteration. This algorithm starts
by building a single leaf and continues by adding new branches. Consider the following example:
Here, IL and IR are the sets of observations that are in the left and right parts of a node following a
split. Therefore, I = IL + IR .
 P 2 P 2 P 2 
1
 X
n i∈I j
g i X n i∈IL
gi X n i∈I R
g i

L̂(d)
 
= − P + P + P   − u, (13)
2  i=1
h +λ i
i=1
h +λ i=1
h + λ i i
i∈I j i∈IL i∈IR

L̂(d) of (13) is the node impurity measure, which is calculated for the P covariates. The split is
determined by the maximum value of (13). For example, in the case of CART algorithms, the impurity
measure for categorical target variables can be information gain, Gini impurity or chi-square, while for
continuous target variables it can be the Gini impurity.
Once the tree fd is completely built (i.e., its branches and leaf weights are established), observations
are mapped on the tree (from the root to one corresponding leaf). Thus, the algorithms will update from
(5) to (14) as many times as D boosting iterations are established and the final classification is the sum
of the D obtained functions which are shown in (3). Consequently, the XGBoost corrects the mistaken
predictions in each iteration, as far as this is possible, and tends to overfit the data. Thus, to prevent
overfitting, the regularization parameter value in the objective function is highly recommended.
Risks 2019, 7, 70 6 of 16

2.2.2. Implementation
An example of R code is given in the Appendix A.
The implementation of XGBoost has proved to be quite effective for fitting real binary response
data and a good method for providing a confusion matrix, i.e., a table in which observations and
predictions are compared, with very few false positives and false negatives. However, since the final
prediction of an XGBoost algorithm is the result of a sum of D trees, the graphical representation and
the interpretation of the impact of each covariate on the final estimated probability of occurrence may
be less direct than in the linear or logistic regression models. For instance, if the final predictor is a
combination of several trees, but each tree has a different structure (in the sense that each time the
order of segmentation differs from that of the previous tree), the role of each covariate will depend on
understanding how the covariate impacts the result in the previous trees and what the path of each
observation is in each of the previous trees. Thus, in the XGBoost approach, it is difficult to isolate the
effect on the expected response of one particular covariate compared to all the others.
Under certain circumstances, the XGBoost method can be interpreted directly. This happens when
fd has analytical expressions that can easily be manipulated to compute D
P
d=1 fd (Xi ). One example
is the linear booster, which means that each fd is a linear combination of the covariates rather than a
tree-based classifier. In this case of a linear function, the final prediction is also a linear combination of
the covariates, resulting from the sum of the weights associated with each covariate in each fd .
The results for the true XGBoost predictive model classifier can easily be obtained in R with the
xgboost package.

3. Data and Descriptive Statistics

Our case-study database comprised of 2767 drivers under 30 years of age who underwrote a
pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) policy with a Spanish insurance company. Their driving activity was recorded
using a telematics system. This information was collected from 1 January through 31 December 2011.
The data set contained the following information about each driver: The insured’s age (age), the age
of the vehicle (ageveh) in years; the insured’s gender (male); the driving experience (drivexp) in years;
the percentage of total kilometers travelled in urban areas (pkmurb); the percentage of total kilometers
travelled at night—that is, between midnight and 6 am (pkmnig); the percentage of kilometers above
the mandatory speed limits (pkmexc); the total kilometers (kmtotal); and, finally, the presence of an
accident claim with fault (Y) which was coded as 1 when, at least, one claim where the fault occurred
in the observational period and was reported to the insurance company, and 0 otherwise. This study
is interested in predicting Y using the aforementioned covariates. This data set has been extensively
studied in Ayuso et al. (2014, 2016a, 2016b) and Boucher et al. (2017).
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the accident claims data set. This highlighted that a
substantial part of the sample did not suffer an accident in 2011, with just 7.05% of drivers reporting
at least one accident claim. The insureds with no accident claim seemed to have travelled fewer
kilometers than those presenting a claim. The non-occurrence of accident claims was also linked
to a lower percentage of driving in urban areas and a lower percentage of kilometers driven above
mandatory speed limits. In this dataset, 7.29% of men and 6.79% of women had an accident during the
observation year.
The data set was divided randomly into a training data set of 1937 observations (75% of the
total sample) and a testing data set of 830 observations (25% of the total sample). The function
CreateDataPartion of R was used to maintain the same proportion of events (coded as 1) of the total
sample in both the training and testing data sets.
Risks 2019, 7, 70 7 of 16

Table 1. The description of the variables in the accident claims data set 1 .

Non-Occurrence of Occurrence of
Variables Accident Claims Accident Claims Total
(Y = 0) (Y = 1)
Age (years) 25.10 24.55 25.06
Female 1263 (93.21%) 92 (6.79%) 1355
Gender
Male 1309 (92.71%) 103 (7.29%) 1412
Driving experience (years) 4.98 4.46 4.94
Age of vehicle (years) 6.37 6.17 6.35
Total kilometers travelled 7094.63 7634.97 7132.71
Percentage of total kilometers
24.60 26.34 24.72
travelled in urban areas
Percentage of total kilometers
6.72 7.24 6.75
above the mandatory speed limit
Percentage of total kilometers
6.88 6.66 6.86
travelled at night
Total number of cases 2572 (92.95%) 195 (7.05%) 2767
1 The mean of the variables according to the occurrence and non-occurrence of accident claims. The absolute
frequency and row percentage is shown for the variable gender.

4. Results
In this section, the results obtained in the training and testing samples were compared when
employing the methods described in Section 2.

4.1. Coefficient Estimates

Table 2 presents the estimates obtained using the two methods. It is noted, however, that the
values are not comparable in magnitude as they correspond to different specifications. The logistic
regression uses its classical standard method to compute the coefficients of the variables and their
standard errors. However, the boosting process of the XGBoost builds D models in reweighted versions
and, therefore, a historical record of the D times P + 1 coefficient estimates was obtained. XGBoost can
only obtain a magnitude of those coefficients if the base learner allows it, and this is not the case when
fd are CART models.
The signs obtained by the logistic regression point estimate and the mean of the XGBoost
coefficients are the same. The inspection of the results in Table 2 shows that older insureds are less
likely to suffer a motor accident than younger policy holders4 . In addition, individuals who travel more
kilometers in urban areas are more likely to have an accident than those that travel fewer kilometers in
urban areas. The authors were not able to interpret the coefficients of the XGBoost, but by inspecting
the maximum and minimum values of the linear booster case, an idea of how the estimates fluctuate
until iteration D was obtained.
Only the coefficients of age and percentage of kilometers travelled in urban areas were significantly
different from zero in the logistic regression model, but the authors preferred to keep all the coefficients
of the covariates in the estimation results to show the general effect of the telematics covariates on the
occurrence of accident at-fault claims in this dataset, and to evaluate the performance of the different
methods in this situation.

4 In general, this is only partially true. The relation of the variable age is typically non-linear, U-shaped, as (very) young
drivers also cause a lot of accidents. The maximum age in this sample is 30 and so, even if models with age and age2 were
estimated, the results did not change substantially.
Risks 2019, 7, 70 8 of 16

Table 2. The parameter estimates of the logistic regression and XGBoost with linear booster.

Training Data Set

Logistic Regression XGBoost (Linear Booster)
Parameter
Estimates Lower Upper
Estimate p-Value Minimum Mean Maximum
Bound Bound
Constant −2.8891 −0.5442 1.8583 0.6526 −2.6760 −2.6690 −1.7270
* age −0.2059 −0.0994 0.0011 0.0591 −0.2573 −0.2416 −0.0757
drivexp −0.1285 −0.0210 0.0906 0.7060 −0.0523 −0.0517 −0.0069
ageveh −0.0786 −0.0249 0.0257 0.3481 −0.0897 −0.0885 −0.0220
male −0.3672 0.0039 0.3751 0.9837 0.0019 0.0020 0.0070
kmtotal −0.0203 0.0266 0.2505 0.0137 0.1164 0.1176
pkmnig −0.0354 −0.0046 0.0239 0.7625 −0.0292 −0.0290 −0.0061
pkmexc −0.0122 0.0144 0.0385 0.2650 0.0180 0.1007 0.1016
* pkmurb 0.0002 0.0146 0.0286 0.0425 0.0436 0.2008 0.2023
In the logistic regression columns, the point estimates are presented with the lower and upper bound of a 95%
confidence interval. In the XGBoost columns, the means of the coefficient estimates with a linear boosting of the D
iterations are presented. Similarly, bounds are presented with the minimum and maximum values in the iterations.
There are no regularization parameter values. * Indicates that the coefficient is significant at the 90% confidence
level in the logistic regression estimation. The calculations were performed in R and scripts are available from
the authors.
Risks 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Figure 11 shows
shows the
themagnitude
magnitudeof of all all
the the estimates
estimates of XGBoost
of the the XGBoost
in 200initerations.
200 iterations.
From
From approximately
approximately the tenth
the tenth iteration,
iteration, the coefficient
the coefficient estimates
estimates tendtend to become
to become stabilized.
stabilized. Thus,
Thus, no
no extreme
extreme changes
changes were
were present
present during
during thethe boosting.
boosting.

Figure
Figure 1.1. The
The magnitude
magnitudeofofallallthe estimates
the in the
estimates D =D200
in the iterations.
= 200 TheThe
iterations. different colors
different indicate
colors each
indicate
of theofcoefficients
each in thein
the coefficients XGBoost iteration.
the XGBoost iteration.

4.2. Prediction Performance

4.2. Prediction Performance
The performance of the two methods was evaluated using the confusion matrix, which compares
The performance of the two methods was evaluated using the confusion matrix, which compares
the number of observed events and non-events with their corresponding predictions. Usually, the larger
the number of observed events and non-events with their corresponding predictions. Usually, the
the number of correctly classified responses, the better the model. However, the out-of-sample
larger the number of correctly classified responses, the better the model. However, the out-of-sample
performance was even more important than in-sample results. This means that the classifier must
performance was even more important than in-sample results. This means that the classifier must be
be able to predict the observed events and non-events in the testing sample and not just in the
able to predict the observed events and non-events in the testing sample and not just in the training
training sample.
sample.
The predictive measures used to compare the predictions of the models were sensitivity, specificity,
The predictive measures used to compare the predictions of the models were sensitivity,
accuracy and the root mean square error (RMSE). Sensitivity measures the proportion of actual positives
specificity, accuracy and the root mean square error (RMSE). Sensitivity measures the proportion of
that are classified correctly as such, i.e., True positive/(True positive + False negative). Specificity
actual positives that are classified correctly as such, i.e., True positive/(True positive + False negative).
measures the proportion of actual negatives that are classified correctly as such, i.e., True negative/(True
Specificity measures the proportion of actual negatives that are classified correctly as such, i.e., True
negative + False positive). Accuracy measures the proportion of total cases classified correctly (True
negative/(True negative + False positive). Accuracy measures the proportion of total cases classified
correctly (True positive + True negative)/Total cases. RMSE measures the distance between the
observed and predicted values of the response. It is calculated as follows:
(𝑌𝑖 −𝑌̂𝑖 )2
√∑𝑛𝑖= 1 , (14)
𝑛

The higher the sensitivity, the specificity and the accuracy, the better the models predict the
Risks 2019, 7, 70 9 of 16

positive + True negative)/Total cases. RMSE measures the distance between the observed and predicted
values of the response. It is calculated as follows:
s
2
Xn (Yi − Ŷi )
, (14)
i=1 n

The higher the sensitivity, the specificity and the accuracy, the better the models predict the
outcome variable. The lower the value of RMSE, the better the predictive performance of the model.
Table 3 presents the confusion matrix and the predictive measures of the methods (the logistic
regression, XGBoost with a tree booster and XGBoost with a linear booster) for the training and
testing samples. The results in Table 3 indicated that the performance of the XGBoost with the linear
booster (last column) was similar to that of the logistic regression both in the training and testing
samples5 . XGBoost using the tree approach provided good accuracy and a good RMSE value in the
training sample, but did not perform as well as the other methods in the case of the testing sample.
More importantly, XGBoost failed to provide good sensitivity. In fact, the XGBoost with the tree booster
clearly overfitted the data, because while it performed very well in the training sample, it failed to
do so in the testing sample. For instance, sensitivity was equal to 100% in the training sample for the
XGBoost tree booster methods, but it was equal to only 7.9% in the testing sample.

Table 3. The confusion matrix and predictive measures of the logistic regression, XGBoost with a tree
booster and XGBoost with a linear booster for the testing and training data sets.

Testing Data Set

XGBoost XGBoost
Predictive Measures Logistic Regression
(Tree Booster) (Linear Booster)
Yi = 0, Ŷi = 0 524 692 516
Yi = 1, Ŷi = 0 38 58 38
Yi = 0, Ŷi = 1 243 75 251
Yi = 1, Ŷi = 1 25 5 25
Sensitivity 0.3968 0.0790 0.3968
Specificity 0.6831 0.9022 0.6728
Accuracy 0.6614 0.8397 0.6518
RMSE 0.2651 0.2825 0.2651
Training Data Set
XGBoost XGBoost
Predictive Measures Logistic Regression
(Tree Booster) (Linear Booster)
Yi = 0, Ŷi = 0 1030 1794 1030
Yi = 1, Ŷi = 0 55 0 55
Yi = 0, Ŷi = 1 775 11 775
Yi = 1, Ŷi = 1 77 132 77
Sensitivity 0.5833 1.0000 0.5833
Specificity 0.5706 0.9939 0.5706
Accuracy 0.5715 0.9943 0.5715
RMSE 0.2508 0.0373 0.2508
The threshold used to convert the continuous response into a binary response is the mean of the outcome variable.
The authors performed the calculations.

It cannot be concluded from the foregoing, however, that XGBoost has a poor relative predictive
capacity. Model-tuning procedures have not been incorporated in Table 3. However, tuning offers
the possibility of improving the predictive capacity by modifying some specific parameter estimates.

5 This is not surprising because XGBoost (linear) is a combination of linear probability models.
Risks 2019, 7, 70 10 of 16

The following are some of the possible tuning actions that could be taken: Fixing a maximum for
the number of branches of the tree (maximum depth); establishing a limited number of iterations of
the boosting; or fixing a number of subsamples in the training sample. The xgboost package in R
denotes these tuning options as general parameters, booster parameters, learning task parameters,
Risks 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
and command line parameters, all of which can be adjusted to obtain different results in the prediction.
Figureλ2that
parameter shows the ROC to
is multiplied curve obtainedSecond,
the l2-norm. using the
thethree methods
L1 (Lasso) on the
method wastraining and testing
considered, which
samples. This study confirmed that the logistic regression and XGBoost (linear) have
is an additional implementation possibility of the xgboost package in R that takes the l1-norm a similar predictiveof
performance.
the leaf weights. TheItXGBoost (tree) presented
has a parameter 𝛼 thatan is outstanding
multiplied toAUCthe in the caseConsequently,
l1-norm. of the trainingλsample,
and 𝛼
and the same
calibrated the value as the logistic
regularization term inregression in the testing
(4). For simplicity, sample.
no tree However,
pruning as discussed so
was implemented, in Table
µ= 0 in3,
it failed
(4). to maintain this degree of sensitivity when this algorithm is used with new samples.

Figure 2. The
The receiver
receiver operating
operating characteristics (ROC) curve obtained using the three methods on the
training and testing samples. TheThe red
red solid
solid line represents the ROC curve obtained by each method
in the training sample, and the blue dotted line represents the ROC curve obtained by each method
in the testing sample. The
The area
area under
under the
the curve
curve (AUC)
(AUC) is
is 0.58
0.58 for the training sample
sample (T.S) and 0.49
sample (Te.S) when logistic regression
for the testing sample regression is
is used;
used; 0.58
0.58 for
for the
the T.S
T.S and 0.53
0.53 for
for the
the Te.S
when XGBoost (linear booster) is used; and, 0.997 for the T.S and 0.49 for the Te.S when the XGBoost
(tree booster) is used.

4.3. Correcting
The values theofOverfitting
𝛼 and λ should be as small as possible, because they add bias to the estimates,
and the
Onemodels
of the tend
mosttofrequently
become underfitted
employed as the valuesfor
techniques of addressing
the regularization parameters
the overfitting become
problem is
larger. For this reason, their changes were evaluated in a small interval.
regularization. This method shrinks the magnitude of the coefficients of the covariates in Figure 3 shows the predictive
modelling
measures
as the valuefor the regularization
of the testing and training
parametersamples according to the values of 𝛼 when the L1
increases.
regularization
In order tomethod
determinewas whether
implemented. When 𝛼(tree
the XGBoost = 0,booster)
exactly the
can same predictive
perform measure
better than values
the logistic
as
regression model, a simple sensitivity analysis of the regularization parameters was proposed. InAs
in Table 3 (column 3) were obtained because the objective function had not been regularized. so
the value
doing, the of 𝛼 increased,
evolution of the the models’
following accuracymatrix
confusion and sensitivity
measures was values fell sharply—to
evaluated: Accuracy, least 𝛼 ≃
atsensitivity
0.06 in the training sample.toInsome
and specificity—according the testing sample, the fall
given regularization in these values
parameter values was nottraining
for the as pronounced.
and the
However, when 𝛼 was
testing sample—and, lower
finally, the than 0.06, the parameter
regularization specificity was
performance
chosen that was thethe
gives lowest
highestof predictive
the three
measures.
measures in Moreover,
the trainingselecting an 𝛼 samples.
and testing value lower than 0.05 resulted in higher accuracy and sensitivity
measures, but lower specificity. In contrast,
Two regularization methods were considered. when 𝛼 equaled
First, the0.06
L2in(Ridge)
the testing
was sample, the highest
considered, which
specificity
is Chen and level of 0.5079
Guestrin wasoriginal
(2016) obtained, with corresponding
proposal and takes the accuracy
l2-normand of sensitivity values ofIt0.5892
the leaf weights. has a
and 0.5988,
parameter λ that
respectively.
is multipliedIn the
to thetraining
l2-norm.sample, the L1𝛼(Lasso)
Second,when = 0.06 the specificity,
method accuracy
was considered, which andis
sensitivity were: 0.7227, 0.6086, and 0.6000, respectively. As a result, when 𝛼 was
an additional implementation possibility of the xgboost package in R that takes the l1-norm of the leaf fixed at 0.06, the
model performed
weights. similarly inα both
It has a parameter themultiplied
that is testing andtotraining Consequently, λ and calibrated the
samples.
the l1-norm.
regularization term in (4). For simplicity, no tree pruning was implemented, so µ = 0 in (4).
Risks 2019, 7, 70 11 of 16

The values of α and λ should be as small as possible, because they add bias to the estimates,
and the models tend to become underfitted as the values of the regularization parameters become
larger. For this reason, their changes were evaluated in a small interval. Figure 3 shows the predictive
measures for the testing and training samples according to the values of α when the L1 regularization
method was implemented. When α = 0, exactly the same predictive measure values as in Table 3
(column 3) were obtained because the objective function had not been regularized. As the value of α
increased, the models’ accuracy and sensitivity values fell sharply—to at least α ' 0.06 in the training
sample. In the testing sample, the fall in these values was not as pronounced. However, when α
was lower than 0.06, the specificity performance was the lowest of the three measures. Moreover,
selecting an α value lower than 0.05 resulted in higher accuracy and sensitivity measures, but lower
specificity. In contrast, when α equaled 0.06 in the testing sample, the highest specificity level of 0.5079
was obtained, with corresponding accuracy and sensitivity values of 0.5892 and 0.5988, respectively.
In the training sample, when α = 0.06 the specificity, accuracy and sensitivity were: 0.7227, 0.6086,
and 0.6000, respectively. As a result, when was fixed at 0.06, the model performed similarly in both the
Risks 2019,
testing and7, xtraining
FOR PEERsamples.
REVIEW 11 of 16

Figure 3.3. The

Figure Thepredictive
predictivemeasures
measuresaccording to α.toL1𝛼.method
according applied
L1 method to the training
applied and testing
to the training andsamples.
testing
samples.
Thus, with the L1 regularization method (α = 0.06), the new model recovered specificity, but lost
someThus,
sensitivity when
with the compared withmethod
L1 regularization the performance
(𝛼 = 0.06),ofthe
thenew
firstmodel
modelrecovered
in Table 3,specificity,
for whichbutno
regularization was undertaken. Thus, the authors concluded that α = 0.06 which can
lost some sensitivity when compared with the performance of the first model in Table 3, for which be considered
as
no providing the best
regularization wastrade-off between
undertaken. Thus,correcting for overfitting
the authors concludedwhile
that only
𝛼 =slightly reducing
0.06 which can the
be
predictive capacity.
considered as providing the best trade-off between correcting for overfitting while only slightly
Figure
reducing the4predictive
shows thecapacity.
predictive measures for the testing and training samples according to the
values of λ when the L2 regularization
Figure 4 shows the predictive measuresmethodfor is implemented.
the testing andFrom λ = 0samples
training to λ = 0.30. all predictive
according to the
measures were approximately 100% in the training sample. However, very
values of λ when the L2 regularization method is implemented. From λ = 0 to λ = 0.30. all different results were
predictive
recorded
measures in the testing
were sample. 100%
approximately Specifically, accuracysample.
in the training and sensitivity
However, fellvery
slowly, but specificity
different was
results were
low—there being no single λ that made this parameter exceed at least 20%. Therefore, no λ
recorded in the testing sample. Specifically, accuracy and sensitivity fell slowly, but specificity was could help
improve
low—there specificity
being noin single
the testing sample.
λ that made ThethisL2 regularization
parameter exceedmethod did
at least not Therefore,
20%. seem to be an
no effective
λ could
solution to correct
help improve the problem
specificity in the of overfitting
testing sample. in The
our case study data set.method did not seem to be an
L2 regularization
effective solution to correct the problem of overfitting in our case study data set.
The difference in outcomes recorded between the L1 and L2 regularization approaches might
also be influenced by the characteristics of each regularization method. Goodfellow et al. (2016) and
Bishop (2007) explained that L1 penalizes the sum of the absolute value of the weights, and that it
seems to be robust to outliers, has feature selection, provides a sparse solution, and is able to give
simpler but interpretable models. In contrast, L2 penalizes the sum of the square weights, has no
feature selection, is not robust to outliers, is more able to provide better predictions when the
response variable is a function of all input variables, and is better able to learn more complex models
Risks 2019, 7, 70 12 of 16
Risks 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

4. The
Figure 4.
Figure Thepredictive
predictivemeasures
measuresaccording to λ.toL2𝜆.method
according applied
L2 method to the training
applied and testing
to the training andsamples.
testing
samples.
The difference in outcomes recorded between the L1 and L2 regularization approaches might
also be influenced
Table 4 shows bythe
the three
characteristics of each regularization
most important method.
variables for each Goodfellow
method. The twoet al. (2016)
agree on and
the
Bishop (2007) explained that L1 penalizes the sum of the absolute value of the weights, and
importance of the percentage of total kilometers travelled in urban areas as a key factor in predicting that it
seems
the to be robust
response to outliers,
variable. has feature
Total kilometers selection,
driven and age provides a sparseamong
only appeared solution, andthree
the top is able to give
variables
in the case of logistic regression, while the percentage of kilometers travelled over the speedhas
simpler but interpretable models. In contrast, L2 penalizes the sum of the square weights, no
limits
feature
and theselection,
percentageis not robust to outliers,
of kilometers driven isatmore
nightable to provide
appeared better
among thepredictions when the
most important response
variables in
variable is a function of all
the case of the XGBoost method.input variables, and is better able to learn more complex models than L1.

4.4. Variable Importance

Table 4. Variable Importance. The most relevant variables of the different methods.
Variable importance or feature selection is a technique that measures the contribution of each
Level of XGBoost
variable or feature to the final Logistic
outcomeRegression
prediction based on the Gini impurity. This method is of great
Importance (Tree Booster)
relevance in tree models because it helps identify the order in which the leaves appear in the tree.
percentage of total kilometers percentage of kilometers above the
The treeFirst
branches (downwards) begin with the variables that have the greatest effect and end with
travelled in urban areas mandatory speed limits
those that have the smallest effect (for further details see, for example, Kuhn and Johnson 2013).
percentage of total kilometers
Table 4 shows the three most important
Second age variables for each method. The two agree on the
travelled in urban areas
importance of the percentage of total kilometers travelled in urban areas as a key factor in predicting
percentage of total kilometers
the response
Thirdvariable. Total kilometers driven and age only appeared among the top three variables in
total kilometers
travelled at night
the case of logistic regression, while the percentage of kilometers travelled over the speed limits and
the percentage of kilometers driven at night appeared among the most important variables in the case
5. Conclusions
of the XGBoost method.
XGBoost, and other boosting models, are dominant methods today among machine-learning
algorithms and are widely used because of their reputation for providing accurate predictions. This
novel algorithm is capable of building an ensemble model characterized by an efficient learning
method that seems to outperform other boosting-based predictive algorithms. Unlike the majority of
machine learning methods, XGBoost is able to compute coefficient estimates under certain
circumstances and, therefore, the magnitude of the effects can be studied. The method allows the
analyst to measure not only the final prediction, but also the effect of the covariates on a target
variable at each iteration of the boosting process, which is something that traditional econometric
models (e.g., generalized linear models) do in one single estimation step.
Risks 2019, 7, 70 13 of 16

Table 4. Variable Importance. The most relevant variables of the different methods.

XGBoost
Level of Importance Logistic Regression
(Tree Booster)
percentage of total kilometers percentage of kilometers above the
First
travelled in urban areas mandatory speed limits
percentage of total kilometers
Second age
travelled in urban areas
percentage of total kilometers
Third total kilometers
travelled at night

5. Conclusions
XGBoost, and other boosting models, are dominant methods today among machine-learning
algorithms and are widely used because of their reputation for providing accurate predictions.
This novel algorithm is capable of building an ensemble model characterized by an efficient learning
method that seems to outperform other boosting-based predictive algorithms. Unlike the majority of
machine learning methods, XGBoost is able to compute coefficient estimates under certain circumstances
and, therefore, the magnitude of the effects can be studied. The method allows the analyst to measure
not only the final prediction, but also the effect of the covariates on a target variable at each iteration of
the boosting process, which is something that traditional econometric models (e.g., generalized linear
models) do in one single estimation step.
When a logistic regression and XGBoost compete to predict the occurrence of accident claims
without model-tuning procedures, the predictive performance of the XGBoost (tree booster) was much
higher than the logistic regression in the training sample, but considerably poorer in the testing sample.
Thus, a simple regularization analysis has been proposed here to correct this problem of overfitting.
However, the improvement in predictive performance of the XGBoost following this regularization
was similar to that obtained by the logistic regression. This means additional efforts have to be taken
to tune the XGBoost model to obtain a higher predictive performance without overfitting the data.
This might be considered as the trade-off between obtaining a better performance, and the simplicity it
provides for interpreting the effect of the covariates.
Based on our results, the classical logistic regression model can predict accident claims using
telematics data and provided a straightforward interpretation of the coefficient estimates. Moreover,
the method offered a relatively high predictive performance considering that only two coefficients
were significant at the 90% confidence level. These results are not bettered by the XGBoost method.
When the boosting framework of XGBoost is not based on a linear booster, interpretability
becomes difficult, as a model’s coefficient estimates cannot be calculated. In this case, variable
importance can be used to evaluate the weight of the individual covariates in the final prediction.
Here, different conclusions were obtained for the two methods employed. Thus, given that the
predictive performance of XGBoost was not much better than the logistic regression, even after
careful regularization, the authors concluded that the new methodology needs to be adopted carefully,
especially in a context where the number of event responses (accident) is low compared to the opposite
response (no accident). Indeed, this phenomenon of unbalanced response is attracting more and more
attention in the field of machine learning, because it is known that machine learning algorithms do not
work well in datasets with imbalanced responses (He and Garcia 2008). XGBoost might perform better
in other problems, especially when the number of events and no events are balanced. The reputation
of XGBoost (tree booster) may be due to its capacity of accuracy. In our case study, XGBoost has
proven the highest accuracy in the testing and training data sets, but it does not seem to be effective
for sensitivity.
For future work, it would be interesting to see bigger datasets with thousands of explanatory
variables to conclude whether or not XGBoost has better predictive performance than a regularized
Risks 2019, 7, 70 14 of 16

version of logistic regression. Similarly, it would also be interesting to see comparative studies for other
machine learning approaches using this dataset, including but not limited to neural network approaches.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization, methodology, software, validation,
data curation, writing—review and editing, visualization, and supervision of this paper.
Acknowledgments: We thank the Spanish Ministry of Economy, FEDER grant ECO2016-76203-C2-2-P. The second
author gratefully acknowledges financial support received from ICREA under the ICREA Academia Program.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

R Code
# Loading data
load(“data.Rdata”)
x<-data
# Training and test data sets
# We divide 70% of the data set as training, and 30% as testing
library(caret)
part<-createDataPartition(x$Y,p = 0.70, list = F)
train.set<-x[part,] # training data set
train.set<-train.set()[−1]
testing.set<- x[-part,] # testing data set
testing.set<-testing.set()[−1]
## First Method: Logistic Regression
logistic1 <- glm(factor(train.set$Y) ~ x2+I(x2ˆ2)+x3+x4+factor(x1)+x5+x6+x7+x8,
data = train.set,family = binomial(link = ‘logit’))
summary(logistic1)
# Predicting the output with the testing data set
predicted.log.test <- predict(logistic1,testing.set, type = ‘response’)
# Predicting the output with the training data set
predicted.log1.train<- predict(logistic1,train.set, type = ‘response’)
# Variable Importance
varImp(logistic1)
## Second Method: XGBoost (tree booster)
library(xgboost)
library(Matrix)
# Function xgboost requires sparsing data first
sparse_xx.tr<- sparse.model.matrix(Y ~ x2+I(x2ˆ2)+x3+x4+factor(x1)+x5+x6+x7+x8, data = train.set)
sparse_xx.te<- sparse.model.matrix(Y ~ x2+I(x2ˆ2)+x3+x4+factor(x1)+x5+x6+x7+x8,
data = testing.set)
xgboost_reg <- xgboost(data = sparse_xx.tr, label = train.set$Y, objective = “binary:logistic”,
nrounds = 100, verbose = 1)
# Predicting the output with testing data set
pred.xgboost.test<- predict(xgboost_reg,sparse_xx.te, outputmargin = F)
# Predicting the output with training data set
pred.xgboost.train<-predict(xgboost_reg,sparse_xx.tr, outputmargin = F)
# Variable Importance
importance <- xgb.importance(feature_names = sparse_xx.tr@Dimnames[(2)],
model = xgboost_reg)
Risks 2019, 7, 70 15 of 16

References
Ayuso, Mercedes, Montserrat Guillén, and Ana María Pérez-Marín. 2014. Time and distance to first accident
and driving patterns of young drivers with pay-as-you-drive insurance. Accident Analysis and Prevention 73:
125–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ayuso, Mercedes, Montserrat Guillén, and Ana María Pérez-Marín. 2016a. Using GPS data to analyse the distance
travelled to the first accident at fault in pay-as-you-drive insurance. Transportation Research Part C 68: 160–67.
[CrossRef]
Ayuso, Mercedes, Montserrat Guillén, and Ana María Pérez-Marín. 2016b. Telematics and gender discrimination:
some usage-based evidence on whether men’s risk of accident differs from women’s. Risks 4: 10. [CrossRef]
Bishop, Christopher M. 2007. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Journal of Electronic Imaging 16: 049901.
[CrossRef]
Boucher, Jean-Philippe, Steven Côté, and Montserrat Guillen. 2017. Exposure as duration and distance in
telematics motor insurance using generalized additive models. Risks 5: 54. [CrossRef]
Chen, Tianqi, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd
ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM, pp. 785–94.
[CrossRef]
De Boer, Pieter-Tjerk, Dirk P. Kroese, Shie Mannor, and Reuven Y. Rubinstein. 2005. A tutorial on the Cross
Entropy Method. Annals of Operations Research 134: 19–67. [CrossRef]
Dietterich, Thomas G., Pedro Domingos, Lise Getoor, Stephen Muggleton, and Prasad Tadepalli. 2008. Structured
machine learning: The next ten years. Machine Learning 73: 3–23. [CrossRef]
Elliott, Graham, and Allan Timmermann. 2003. Handbook of Economic Forecasting. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Friedman, Jerome, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. 2001. The Elements of Statistical Learning. New York:
Springer.
Gao, Guangyuan, and Mario V. Wüthrich. 2018. Feature extraction from telematics car driving heatmaps. European
Actuarial Journal 8: 383–406. [CrossRef]
Gao, Guangyuan, and Mario V. Wüthrich. 2019. Convolutional neural network classification of telematics car
driving data. Risks 7: 6. [CrossRef]
Gao, Guangyuan, Shengwang Meng, and Mario V. Wüthrich. 2019. Claims frequency modeling using telematics
car driving data. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 2019: 143–62. [CrossRef]
Gomez-Verdejo, Vanessa, Jeronimo Arenas-Garcia, Manuel Ortega-Moral, and Anıbal R. Figueiras-Vidal. 2005.
Designing RBF classifiers for weighted boosting. IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks 2:
1057–62. [CrossRef]
Goodfellow, Ian, Bengio Yoshua, and Courville Aaron. 2016. Deep Learning. Chenai: MIT Press.
Greene, William. 2002. Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Guillen, Montserrat, Jens Perch Nielsen, Mercedes Ayuso, and Ana M. Pérez-Marín. 2019. The use of telematics
devices to improve automobile insurance rates. Risk Analysis 39: 662–72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hastie, Trevor, Rob Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Prediction, Inference
and Data Mining. New York: Springer.
He, Haibo, and Edwardo A. Garcia. 2008. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data
Engineering 9: 1263–84. [CrossRef]
Huang, Jianhua Z., and Lijian Yang. 2004. Identification of non-linear additive autoregressive models. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 66: 463–77. [CrossRef]
Hultkrantz, Lars, Jan-Eric Nilsson, and Sara Arvidsson. 2012. Voluntary internalization of speeding externalities
with vehicle insurance. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46: 926–37. [CrossRef]
Ivanov, Valentin K., Vladimir V. Vasin, and Vitalii P. Tanana. 2013. Theory of Linear Ill-Posed Problems and Its
Applications. Zeist: VSP.
James, Gareth, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning.
New York: Springer, vol. 112, p. 18.
Kuhn, Max, and Kjell Johnson. 2013. Applied Predictive Modeling. New York: Springer, vol. 26.
Risks 2019, 7, 70 16 of 16

Lee, Simon, and Katrien Antonio. 2015. Why High Dimensional Modeling in Actuarial Science? Paper presented
at Actuaries Institute ASTIN, AFIR/ERM and IACA Colloquia, Sydney, Australia, August 23–27. Available
online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad42/c5a42642e75d1a02b48c6eb84bab87874a1b.pdf (accessed on
8 May 2019).
Lee, Simon CK, and Sheldon Lin. 2018. Delta boosting machine with application to general insurance.
North American Actuarial Journal 22: 405–25. [CrossRef]
Natekin, Alexey, and Alois Knoll. 2013. Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 7: 21.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
McCullagh, Peter, and John Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Pérez-Marín, Ana M., and Montserrat Guillén. 2019. Semi-autonomous vehicles: Usage-based data evidences of
what could be expected from eliminating speed limit violations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 123: 99–106.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schapire, Robert E., and Yoav Freund. 2012. Boosting: Foundations and Algorithms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Steinwart, Ingo, and Andreas Christmann. 2008. Support Vector Machines. New York: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Tikhonov, Andrej-Nikolaevich, and Vasiliy-Yakovlevich Arsenin. 1977. Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. New York:
Wiley.
Verbelen, Roel, Katrien Antonio, and Gerda Claeskens. 2018. Unraveling the predictive power of telematics
data in car insurance pricing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 67: 1275–304.
[CrossRef]
Wüthrich, Mario V. 2017. Covariate selection from telematics car driving data. European Actuarial Journal 7: 89–108.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).