Capped-usage SaaS products -- LLM subscriptions such as Claude Code and ChatGPT, cloud platforms such as Vercel and Cloudflare Workers, corporate benefit platforms, identity-verification services with liability transfer -- share a structural signature with insurance products: a fixed premium decoupled from realized consumption, stochastic per-user demand with heavy-tailed severity, a non-fungible cap that resets on a fixed schedule, and a portfolio-level exposure that requires reserve adequacy under tail risk. We argue that this is not an analogy. It is the same operational problem actuarial science has been tooled for decades to address, restated with new dependent variables (tokens, bandwidth bytes, function-invocations, gym check-ins) in place of medical claims. This paper proposes a modeling framework for capped-usage SaaS pricing built from frequency-severity decomposition, premium calculation principles, and Monte Carlo reserve adequacy. We map the framework to publicly observable subscription tiers in two domains (LLM services and cloud platforms), ground it in canonical health-insurance economics (Arrow 1963; Pauly 1968; Manning et al. 1987; Brot-Goldberg et al. 2017), and demonstrate divergence from traditional unit economics through a worked example. The contribution is operational rather than theoretical: not a new theorem, but vocabulary and tools currently absent from cs.LG/stat.ML practice.

Geographic context is often consider relevant to motor insurance risk, yet public actuarial datasets provide limited location identifiers, constraining how this information can be incorporated and evaluated in claim-frequency models. This study examines how geographic information from alternative data sources can be incorporated into actuarial models for Motor Third Party Liability (MTPL) claim prediction under such constraints. Using the BeMTPL97 dataset, we adopt a zone-level modeling framework and evaluate predictive performance on unseen postcodes. Geographic information is introduced through two channels: environmental indicators from OpenStreetMap and CORINE Land Cover, and orthoimagery released by the Belgian National Geographic Institute for academic use. We evaluate the predictive contribution of coordinates, environmental features, and image embeddings across three baseline models: generalized linear models (GLMs), regularized GLMs, and gradient-boosted trees, while raw imagery is modeled using convolutional neural networks. Our results show that augmenting actuarial variables with constructed geographic information improves accuracy. Across experiments, both linear and tree-based models benefit most from combining coordinates with environmental features extracted at 5 km scale, while smaller neighborhoods also improve baseline specifications. Generally, image embeddings do not improve performance when environmental features are available; however, when such features are absent, pretrained vision-transformer embeddings enhance accuracy and stability for regularized GLMs. Our results show that the predictive value of geographic information in zone-level MTPL frequency models depends less on model complexity than on how geography is represented, and illustrate that geographic context can be incorporated despite limited individual-level spatial information.

Deep generative models for tabular data (GANs, diffusion models, and LLM-based generators) exhibit highly non-uniform behavior across datasets; the best-performing synthesizer family depends strongly on distributional stressors such as long-tailed marginals, high-cardinality categorical, Zipfian imbalance, and small-sample regimes. This brittleness makes practical deployment challenging, especially when users must balance competing objectives of fidelity, privacy, and utility. We study {intent-conditioned tabular synthesis selection}: given a dataset and a user intent expressed as a preference over evaluation metrics, the goal is to select a synthesizer that minimizes regret relative to an intent-specific oracle. We propose {stress profiling}, a synthesis-specific meta-feature representation that quantifies dataset difficulty along four interpretable stress dimensions, and integrate it into {SYNTHONY}, a selection framework that matches stress profiles against a calibrated capability registry of synthesizer families. Across a benchmark of 7 datasets, 10 synthesizers, and 3 intents, we demonstrate that stress-based meta-features are highly predictive of synthesizer performance: a $k$NN selector using these features achieves strong Top-1 selection accuracy, substantially outperforming zero-shot LLM selectors and random baselines. We analyze the gap between meta-feature-based and capability-based selection, identifying the hand-crafted capability registry as the primary bottleneck and motivating learned capability representations as a direction for future work.

We propose a federated learning framework for the calibration of parametric insurance indices under heterogeneous renewable energy production losses. Producers locally model their losses using Tweedie generalized linear models and private data, while a common index is learned through federated optimization without sharing raw observations. The approach accommodates heterogeneity in variance and link functions and directly minimizes a global deviance objective in a distributed setting. We implement and compare FedAvg, FedProx and FedOpt, and benchmark them against an existing approximation-based aggregation method. An empirical application to solar power production in Germany shows that federated learning recovers comparable index coefficients under moderate heterogeneity, while providing a more general and scalable framework.

Good Job I Have a Job Offer I Can't Refuse. The Company It Comes From Has a Terrible Reputation for Women. My company unexpectedly outsourced my entire department to a firm that uses AI for our jobs, even though I don't work a job that can really be done by machine learning. I have some savings but can't go without health insurance: my daughter and I both have the same complex chronic condition. I was briefly on public insurance in the past and it was a nightmare of waitlists leading to a cascade of hospital stays.

This paper comprehensively elaborates on the construction methodology, multi-dimensional evaluation system, and underlying design philosophy of CUFEInse v1.0. Adhering to the principles of "quantitative-oriented, expert-driven, and multi-validation," the benchmark establishes an evaluation framework covering 5 core dimensions, 54 sub-indicators, and 14,430 high-quality questions, encompassing insurance theoretical knowledge, industry understanding, safety and compliance, intelligent agent application, and logical rigor. Based on this benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted on 11 mainstream large language models. The evaluation results reveal that general-purpose models suffer from common bottlenecks such as weak actuarial capabilities and inadequate compliance adaptation. High-quality domain-specific training demonstrates significant advantages in insurance vertical scenarios but exhibits shortcomings in business adaptation and compliance. The evaluation also accurately identifies the common bottlenecks of current large models in professional scenarios such as insurance actuarial, underwriting and claim settlement reasoning, and compliant marketing copywriting. The establishment of CUFEInse not only fills the gap in professional evaluation benchmarks for the insurance field, providing academia and industry with a professional, systematic, and authoritative evaluation tool, but also its construction concept and methodology offer important references for the evaluation paradigm of large models in vertical fields, serving as an authoritative reference for academic model optimization and industrial model selection. Finally, the paper looks forward to the future iteration direction of the evaluation benchmark and the core development direction of "domain adaptation + reasoning enhancement" for insurance large models.

As language models evolve into autonomous agents that act and communicate on behalf of users, ensuring safety in multi-agent ecosystems becomes a central challenge. Interactions between personal assistants and external service providers expose a core tension between utility and protection: effective collaboration requires information sharing, yet every exchange creates new attack surfaces. We introduce ConVerse, a dynamic benchmark for evaluating privacy and security risks in agent-agent interactions. ConVerse spans three practical domains (travel, real estate, insurance) with 12 user personas and over 864 contextually grounded attacks (611 privacy, 253 security). Unlike prior single-agent settings, it models autonomous, multi-turn agent-to-agent conversations where malicious requests are embedded within plausible discourse. Privacy is tested through a three-tier taxonomy assessing abstraction quality, while security attacks target tool use and preference manipulation. Evaluating seven state-of-the-art models reveals persistent vulnerabilities; privacy attacks succeed in up to 88% of cases and security breaches in up to 60%, with stronger models leaking more. By unifying privacy and security within interactive multi-agent contexts, ConVerse reframes safety as an emergent property of communication.

Large language models (LLMs) have seen increasing popularity in enterprise applications where AI agents and humans engage in objective-driven interactions. However, these systems are difficult to evaluate: data may be complex and unlabeled; human annotation is often impractical at scale; custom metrics can monitor for specific errors, but not previously-undetected ones; and LLM judges can produce unreliable results. We introduce the first set of unsupervised metrics for objective-driven interactions, leveraging statistical properties of unlabeled interaction data and using fine-tuned LLMs to adapt to distributional shifts. We develop metrics for labeling user goals, measuring goal completion, and quantifying LLM uncertainty without grounding evaluations in human-generated ideal responses. Our approach is validated on open-domain and task-specific interaction data.

Flood insurance is an effective strategy for individuals to mitigate disaster-related losses. However, participation rates among at-risk populations in the United States remain strikingly low. This gap underscores the need to understand and model the behavioral mechanisms underlying insurance decisions. Large language models (LLMs) have recently exhibited human-like intelligence across wide-ranging tasks, offering promising tools for simulating human decision-making. This study constructs a benchmark dataset to capture insurance purchase probabilities across factors. Using this dataset, the capacity of LLMs is evaluated: while LLMs exhibit a qualitative understanding of factors, they fall short in estimating quantitative probabilities. To address this limitation, InsurAgent, an LLM-empowered agent comprising five modules including perception, retrieval, reasoning, action, and memory, is proposed. The retrieval module leverages retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to ground decisions in empirical survey data, achieving accurate estimation of marginal and bivariate probabilities. The reasoning module leverages LLM common sense to extrapolate beyond survey data, capturing contextual information that is intractable for traditional models. The memory module supports the simulation of temporal decision evolutions, illustrated through a roller coaster life trajectory. Overall, InsurAgent provides a valuable tool for behavioral modeling and policy analysis.

Legal interpretation frequently involves assessing how a legal text, as understood by an 'ordinary' speaker of the language, applies to the set of facts characterizing a legal dispute in the U.S. judicial system. Recent scholarship has proposed that legal practitioners add large language models (LLMs) to their interpretive toolkit. This work offers an empirical argument against LLM interpretation as recently practiced by legal scholars and federal judges. Our investigation in English shows that models do not provide stable interpretive judgments: varying the question format can lead the model to wildly different conclusions. Moreover, the models show weak to moderate correlation with human judgment, with large variance across model and question variant, suggesting that it is dangerous to give much credence to the conclusions produced by generative AI.