Etude des marchés d'assurance non-vie à l'aide d'équilibres de ...
Etude des marchés d'assurance non-vie à l'aide d'équilibres de ...
Etude des marchés d'assurance non-vie à l'aide d'équilibres de ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
tel-00703797, version 2 - 7 Jun 2012<br />
Chapitre 1. Sur la nécessité d’un modèle <strong>de</strong> marché<br />
Let us first regress the bronchitis indicator on all variables<br />
⎛ ⎞<br />
⎛ ⎞<br />
Y =<br />
⎜<br />
⎝<br />
B1<br />
.<br />
Bn<br />
⎟<br />
⎠ and X =<br />
⎜<br />
⎝.<br />
1 P1 C1<br />
.<br />
.<br />
1 Pn Cn<br />
with a logit link function. The regression summary is given below<br />
⎟<br />
⎠ ,<br />
Call: glm(formula = bron ~ 1 + cigs + poll, family = binomial)<br />
Deviance Residuals:<br />
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max<br />
-2.4023 -0.5606 -0.4260 -0.3155 2.3594<br />
Coefficients:<br />
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)<br />
(Intercept) -10.08491 2.95100 -3.417 0.000632 ***<br />
cigs 0.21169 0.03813 5.552 2.83e-08 ***<br />
poll 0.13176 0.04895 2.692 0.007113 **<br />
---<br />
Signif. co<strong><strong>de</strong>s</strong>: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1<br />
Null <strong>de</strong>viance: 221.78 on 211 <strong>de</strong>grees of freedom<br />
Residual <strong>de</strong>viance: 174.21 on 209 <strong>de</strong>grees of freedom - AIC: 180.21<br />
So the GLM fit seems good because all variables (including intercept) are significant with<br />
a very low p-value. However the plot of residuals ∗ (see Figure 1.8a) against fitted values † is<br />
quite puzzling. Two distinct curves are shown: one for ill patients and the other for healthy<br />
ones.<br />
When categorizing the P variable, we lose information but we transform binary data into<br />
binomial data. This makes the fit better on this aspect, see Figure 1.8b. So for the same data,<br />
with the same (significant) variables, the two analyses of residuals lead to different conclusions.<br />
Hence, conclusions of residual analysis must be taken with great care.<br />
GLM outputs of Section 1.3.1<br />
See below the summary table with coefficients values, standard errors, z-statistics and pvalue.<br />
For confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality reason, all the <strong>de</strong>viance and AIC statistics shown in this paper have<br />
been scaled by the same positive coefficient.<br />
Here follows the regression summary when variables are categorical.<br />
Call: glm(formula = did_lapse ~ agepolgroup2 + priceratio:agegroup4 +<br />
priceratio * (gen<strong>de</strong>r + agevehgroup2 + prembeforegroup2),<br />
family = binomial(), data = workdata)<br />
Deviance Residuals:<br />
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max<br />
-3.1587 -0.6633 -0.6060 -0.5193 2.8747<br />
Coefficients:<br />
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)<br />
(Intercept) -2.522477 0.120852 -20.873 < 2e-16 ***<br />
∗. Working residuals are ˆɛi = Yi − ˆπi. Note that using other residual types, Pearson, Stu<strong>de</strong>ntized, do not<br />
change this behavior.<br />
†. Fitted values are ˆπi.<br />
80