Estimation, Evaluation, and Selection of Actuarial Models
Estimation, Evaluation, and Selection of Actuarial Models
Estimation, Evaluation, and Selection of Actuarial Models
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
4.6. SELECTING A MODEL 79<br />
Exercise 83 (*) 150 policyholders were observed from the time they arranged a viatical settlement<br />
until their death. No observations were censored. There were 21 deaths in the first year, 27 deaths<br />
in the second year, 39 deaths in the third year, <strong>and</strong> 63 deaths in the fourth year. The survival model<br />
t(t +1)<br />
S(t) =1− , 0 ≤ t ≤ 4<br />
20<br />
is being considered. At a 5% significance level, conduct the chi-square goodness-<strong>of</strong>-fit test.<br />
Exercise 84 (*) Each day, for 365 days, the number <strong>of</strong> claims is recorded. The results were 50<br />
days with no claims, 122 days with 1 claim, 101 days with 2 claims, 92 days with 3 claims, <strong>and</strong> no<br />
days with 4 or more claims. For a Poisson model determine the maximum likelihood estimate <strong>of</strong> λ<br />
<strong>and</strong> then perform the chi-square goodness-<strong>of</strong>-fit testata2.5%significance level.<br />
Exercise 85 (*) During a one-year period, the number <strong>of</strong> accidents per day was distributed as<br />
follows:<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> accidents Days<br />
0 209<br />
1 111<br />
2 33<br />
3 7<br />
4 3<br />
5 2<br />
Test the hypothesis that the data are from a Poisson distribution with mean 0.6 using the maximum<br />
number <strong>of</strong> groups such that each group has at least five expected observations. Use a significance<br />
level <strong>of</strong> 5%.<br />
4.6 Selecting a model<br />
4.6.1 Introduction<br />
Almost all <strong>of</strong> the tools are in place for choosing a model. Before outlining a recommended approach,<br />
two important concepts must be introduced. The first is parsimony. The principle <strong>of</strong> parsimony<br />
states that unless there is considerable evidence to do otherwise, a simpler model is preferred. The<br />
reason is that a complex model may do a great job <strong>of</strong> matching the data, but that is no guarantee<br />
the model matches the population from which the observations were sampled. For example, given<br />
any set <strong>of</strong> 10 (x, y) pairs with unique x-values, there will always be a polynomial <strong>of</strong> degree 9 or<br />
less that goes through all 10 points. But if these points were a r<strong>and</strong>om sample, it is highly unlikely<br />
that the population values all lie on that polynomial. However, there may be a straight line that<br />
comes close to the sampled points as well as the other points in the population. This matches the<br />
spirit <strong>of</strong> most hypothesis tests. That is, do not reject the null hypothesis (<strong>and</strong> thus claim a more<br />
complex description <strong>of</strong> the population holds) unless there is strong evidence to do so.<br />
The second concept doesn’t have a name. It states that if you try enough models, one will look<br />
good, even if it isn’t. Suppose I have 900 models at my disposal. For most data sets, it is likely<br />
that one <strong>of</strong> them will fit well, but this does not help us learn about the population.<br />
Thus, in selecting models, there are two things to keep in mind: