Yet Another Blog in Statistical Computing

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people. -Isaac Newton

Posts Tagged ‘Statistics

SAS Implementation of ZAGA Models

In the previous post https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/model-non-negative-numeric-outcomes-with-zeros/, I gave a brief introduction about the ZAGA (Zero-Adjusted Gamma) model that provides us a very flexible approach to model non-negative numeric responses. Today, I will show how to implement the ZAGA model with SAS, which can be conducted either jointly or by two steps.

In SAS, the FMM procedure provides a very convenient interface to estimate the ZAGA model in 1 simple step. As shown, there are two model statements, e.g. the first one to estimate a Gamma sub-model with positive outcomes and the second used to separate the point-mass at zero from the positive. The subsequent probmodel statement then is employed to estimate the probability of a record being positive.


data ds;
  set "/folders/myfolders/autoclaim" (keep = clm_amt bluebook npolicy clm_freq5 mvr_pts income);
  where income ~= .;
  clm_flg = (clm_amt > 0);
run;

proc fmm data = ds tech = trureg;
  model clm_amt = bluebook npolicy / dist = gamma;
  model clm_amt = / dist = constant;
  probmodel clm_freq5 mvr_pts income;
run;

An alternative way to develop a ZAGA model in two steps is to estimate a logistic regression first separating the point-mass at zero from the positive and then to estimate a Gamma regression with positive outcomes only, as illustrated below. The two-step approach is more intuitive to understand and, more importantly, is easier to implement without convergence issues as in FMM or NLMIXED procedure.


proc logistic data = ds desc;
  model clm_flg = clm_freq5 mvr_pts income;
run;

proc genmod data = ds;
  where clm_flg = 1;
  model clm_amt = bluebook npolicy / link = log dist = gamma;
run;
Advertisements

Written by statcompute

May 19, 2018 at 8:58 pm

Posted in SAS, Statistical Models, Statistics

Tagged with ,

LogRatio Regression – A Simple Way to Model Compositional Data

The compositional data are proportionals of mutually exclusive groups that would be summed up to the unity. Statistical models for compositional data have been applicable in a number of areas, e.g. the product or channel mix in the marketing research and asset allocations of a investment portfolio.

In the example below, I will show how to model compositional outcomes with a simple LogRatio regression. The underlying idea is very simple. With the D-dimension outcome [p_1, p_2…p_D], we can derive a [D-1]-dimension outcome [log(p_2 / p_1)…log(p_D / p_1)] and then estimate a multivariate regression based on the new outcome.

df = get("ArcticLake", envir = asNamespace('DirichletReg'))

#   sand  silt  clay depth
#1 0.775 0.195 0.030  10.4
#2 0.719 0.249 0.032  11.7
#3 0.507 0.361 0.132  12.8

lm(cbind(log(silt / sand), log(clay / sand)) ~ depth, data = df)

#Response log(silt/sand):
#Coefficients:
#             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) -0.649656   0.236733  -2.744   0.0093 **
#depth        0.037522   0.004269   8.790 1.36e-10 ***
#
#Response log(clay/sand) :
#Coefficients:
#             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) -2.614897   0.421383  -6.206 3.31e-07 ***
#depth        0.062181   0.007598   8.184 8.00e-10 ***

Since log(x / y) = log(x) – log(y), we can also estimate the model with log(sand) as an offset term.


lm(cbind(log(silt), log(clay)) ~ depth + offset(log(sand)), data = df)

#Response log(silt) :
#Coefficients:
#             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) -0.649656   0.236733  -2.744   0.0093 **
#depth        0.037522   0.004269   8.790 1.36e-10 ***
#
#Response log(clay) :
#Coefficients:
#             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) -2.614897   0.421383  -6.206 3.31e-07 ***
#depth        0.062181   0.007598   8.184 8.00e-10 ***

Alternatively, we can also use the comp.reg function in the Compositional package.


Compositional::comp.reg(as.matrix(df[, 1:3]), df[, 4])

#$be
#                   [,1]        [,2]
#(Intercept) -0.64965598 -2.61489731
#x            0.03752186  0.06218069
#
#$seb
#                   [,1]        [,2]
#(Intercept) 0.236733203 0.421382652
#x           0.004268588 0.007598043

Written by statcompute

April 15, 2018 at 9:04 pm

MLE in R

When I learned and experimented a new model, I always like to start with its likelihood function in order to gain a better understanding about the statistical nature. That’s why I extensively used the SAS/NLMIXED procedure that gives me more flexibility. Today, I spent a couple hours playing the optim() function and its wrappers, e.g. mle() and mle2(), in case that I might need a replacement for my favorite NLMIXED in the model estimation. Overall, I feel that the optim() is more flexible. The named list required by the mle() or mle2() for initial values of parameters is somewhat cumbersome without additional benefits. As shown in the benchmark below, the optim() is the most efficient.


library(COUNT)
library(stats4)
library(bbmle)
data(rwm1984)
attach(rwm1984)

### OPTIM() ###
LogLike1 <- function(par) {
  xb <- par[1] + par[2] * outwork + par[3] * age + par[4] * female + par[5] * married 
  mu <- exp(xb)
  ll <- sum(log(exp(-mu) * (mu ^ docvis) / factorial(docvis)))
  return(-ll)
}
fit1 <- optim(rep(0, 5), LogLike1, hessian = TRUE, method = "BFGS")
std1 <- sqrt(diag(solve(fit1$hessian)))
est1 <- data.frame(beta = fit1$par, stder = stder1, z_values = fit1$par / stder1)
#         beta        stder  z_values
#1 -0.06469676 0.0433207574 -1.493436
#2  0.27264177 0.0214085110 12.735205
#3  0.02283541 0.0008394589 27.202540
#4  0.27461355 0.0210597539 13.039732
#5 -0.11804504 0.0217745647 -5.421236

### MLE() ###
LogLike2 <- function(b0, b1, b2, b3, b4) {
  mu <- exp(b0 + b1 * outwork + b2 * age + b3 * female + b4 * married)
  -sum(log(exp(-mu) * (mu ^ docvis) / factorial(docvis)))
}
inits <- list(b0 = 0, b1 = 0, b2 = 0, b3 = 0, b4 = 0)
fit2 <- mle(LogLike2, method = "BFGS", start = inits)
std2 <- sqrt(diag(vcov(fit2)))
est2 <- data.frame(beta = coef(fit2), stder = std2, z_values = coef(fit2) / std2)
#          beta        stder  z_values
#b0 -0.06469676 0.0433417474 -1.492712
#b1  0.27264177 0.0214081592 12.735414
#b2  0.02283541 0.0008403589 27.173407
#b3  0.27461355 0.0210597350 13.039744
#b4 -0.11804504 0.0217746108 -5.421224

### BENCHMARKS ###
microbenchmark::microbenchmark(
  "optim" = {optim(rep(0, 5), LogLike1, hessian = TRUE, method = "BFGS")},
  "mle"   = {mle(LogLike2, method = "BFGS", start = inits)},
  "mle2"  = {mle2(LogLike2, method = "BFGS", start = inits)},
  times = 10
)
#  expr      min       lq     mean   median       uq      max neval
# optim 280.4829 280.7902 296.9538 284.5886 318.6975 320.5094    10
#   mle 283.6701 286.3797 302.9257 289.8849 327.1047 328.6255    10
#  mle2 387.1912 390.8239 407.5090 392.8134 427.0569 467.0013    10

Written by statcompute

February 25, 2018 at 2:33 pm

Posted in S+/R, Statistical Models, Statistics

Tagged with ,

Modeling Dollar Amounts in Regression Setting

After switching the role from the credit risk to the operational risk in 2015, I spent countless weekend hours in the Starbucks researching on how to model operational losses in the regression setting in light of the heightened scrutiny. While I feel very comfortable with various frequency models, how to model severity and loss remain challenging both conceptually and empirically. The same challenge also holds true for modeling other financial measures in dollar amounts, such as balance, profit, or cost.

Most practitioners still prefer modeling severity and loss under the Gaussian distributional assumption explicitly or implicitly. In practice, there are 3 commonly used approaches, as elaborated below.

– First of all, the simple OLS regression to model severity and loss directly without any transformation remains the number one choice due to the simplicity. Given the inconsistency between the empirical data range and the conceptual domain for a Gaussian distribution, it is evidential that this approach is problematic.

– Secondly, the OLS regression to model LOG transformed severity and loss under the Lognormal distributional assumption is also a common approach. In this method, Log(Y) instead of Y is estimated. However, given E(Log(Y)|X) != Log(E(Y|X)), the estimation bias is introduced and therefore should be corrected by MSE / 2. In addition, the positive domain of a Lognormal might not work well in cases of losses with a lower bound that can be either zero or a known threshold value.

– At last, the Tobit regression under the censored Normal distribution seems a viable solution that supports the non-negative or any above-threshold values shown in severity or loss measures. Nonetheless, the censorship itself is questionable given that the unobservability of negative or below-threshold values is not due to the censorship but attributable to the data nature governed by the data collection process. Therefore, the argument for the data censorship is not well supported.

Considering the aforementioned challenge, I investigated and experimented various approaches given different data characteristics observed empirically.

– In cases of severity or loss observed in the range of (0, inf), GLM under Gamma or Inverse Gaussian distributional assumption can be considered (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/some-considerations-of-modeling-severity-in-operational-losses). In addition, the mean-variance relationship can be employed to assess the appropriateness of the correct distribution by either the modified Park test (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/modified-park-test-in-sas) or the value of power parameter in the Tweedie distribution (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/using-tweedie-parameter-to-identify-distributions).

– In cases of severity or loss observed in the range of [alpha, inf) with alpha being positive, then a regression under the type-I Pareto distribution (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/estimate-regression-with-type-i-pareto-response) can be considered. However, there is a caveat that the conditional mean only exists when the shape parameter is large than 1.

– In cases of severity or loss observed in the range of [0, inf) with a small number of zeros, then a regression under the Lomax distribution (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/parameter-estimation-of-pareto-type-ii-distribution-with-nlmixed-in-sas) or the Tweedie distribution (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/model-operational-loss-directly-with-tweedie-glm) can be considered. For the Lomax model, it is worth pointing out that the shape parameter alpha has to be large than 2 in order to to have both mean and variance defined.

– In cases of severity or loss observed in the range of [0, inf) with many zeros, then a ZAGA or ZAIG model (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/model-non-negative-numeric-outcomes-with-zeros) can be considered by assuming the measure governed by a mixed distribution between the point-mass at zeros and the standard Gamma or Inverse Gaussian. As a result, a ZA model consists of 2 sub-models, a nu model separating zeros and positive values and a mu model estimating the conditional mean of positive values.

Written by statcompute

February 18, 2018 at 12:35 am

Model Non-Negative Numeric Outcomes with Zeros

As mentioned in the previous post (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/model-operational-loss-directly-with-tweedie-glm/), we often need to model non-negative numeric outcomes with zeros in the operational loss model development. Tweedie GLM provides a convenient interface to model non-negative losses directly by assuming that aggregated losses are the Poisson sum of Gamma outcomes, which however might not be well supported empirically from the data generation standpoint.

In examples below, we demonstrated another flexible option, namely Zero-Adjusted (ZA) models, in both scenarios of modeling non-negative numeric outcomes, one with a small number of zeros and the other with a large number of zeros. The basic idea of ZA models is very intuitive and similar to the concept of Hurdle models for count outcomes. In a nutshell, non-negative numeric outcomes can be considered two data generation processes, one for point-mass at zeros and the other governed by a statistical distribution for positive outcomes. The latter could be either Gamma or Inverse Gaussian.

First of all, we sampled down an auto-claim data in a way that only 10 claims are zeros and the rest are all positive. While 10 is an arbitrary choice in the example, other small numbers should show similar results.

pkgs <- list("cplm", "gamlss", "MLmetrics")
lapply(pkgs, require, character.only = T)

data(AutoClaim, package = "cplm")
df1 <- na.omit(AutoClaim)

# SMALL NUMBER OF ZEROS
set.seed(2017)
smp <- sample(seq(nrow(df1[df1$CLM_AMT == 0, ])), size = 10, replace = FALSE)
df2 <- rbind(df1[df1$CLM_AMT > 0, ], df1[df1$CLM_AMT == 0, ][smp, ])

Next, we applied both Tweedie and zero-adjusted Gamma (ZAGA) models to the data with only 10 zero outcomes. It is worth mentioning that ZAGA doesn’t have to be overly complex in this case. As shown below, while we estimated the Gamma Mu parameter with model attributes, the Nu parameter to separate zeros is just a constant with the intercept = -5.4. Both Tweedie and GAZA models gave very similar estimated parameters and predictive measures with MAPE = 0.61.

tw <- cpglm(CLM_AMT ~ BLUEBOOK + NPOLICY, data = df2)
#              Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept) 8.194e+00  7.234e-02 113.277  < 2e-16 ***
# BLUEBOOK    2.047e-05  3.068e-06   6.671 3.21e-11 ***
# NPOLICY     7.274e-02  3.102e-02   2.345   0.0191 *  

MAPE(df2$CLM_AMT, fitted(tw))
# 0.6053669

zaga0 <- gamlss(CLM_AMT ~ BLUEBOOK + NPOLICY, data = df2, family = "ZAGA")
# Mu Coefficients:
#              Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept) 8.203e+00  4.671e-02 175.629  < 2e-16 ***
# BLUEBOOK    2.053e-05  2.090e-06   9.821  < 2e-16 ***
# NPOLICY     6.948e-02  2.057e-02   3.377 0.000746 ***
# Nu Coefficients:
#             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept)  -5.3886     0.3169     -17   <2e-16 ***

MAPE(df2$CLM_AMT, (1 - fitted(zaga0, what = "nu")) * fitted(zaga0, what = "mu"))
# 0.6053314

In the next case, we used the full data with a large number of zeros in the response and then applied both Tweedie and ZAGA models again. However, in ZAGA model, we estimated two sub-models this time, one for the Nu parameter to separate zeros from non-zeros and the other for the Mu parameter to model non-zero outcomes. As shown below, ZAGA outperformed Tweedie in terms of MAPE due to the advantage that ZAGA is able to explain two data generation schemes separately with different model attributes, which is the capability beyond what Tweedie can provide.

# LARGE NUMBER OF ZEROS
tw <- cpglm(CLM_AMT ~ BLUEBOOK + NPOLICY + CLM_FREQ5 + MVR_PTS + INCOME, data = df1)
#               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept)  6.854e+00  1.067e-01  64.241  < 2e-16 ***
# BLUEBOOK     1.332e-05  4.495e-06   2.963  0.00305 ** 
# NPOLICY      4.380e-02  3.664e-02   1.195  0.23196    
# CLM_FREQ5    2.064e-01  2.937e-02   7.026 2.29e-12 ***
# MVR_PTS      1.066e-01  1.510e-02   7.063 1.76e-12 ***
# INCOME      -4.606e-06  8.612e-07  -5.348 9.12e-08 ***

MAPE(df1$CLM_AMT, fitted(tw))
# 1.484484

zaga1 <- gamlss(CLM_AMT ~ BLUEBOOK + NPOLICY, nu.formula = ~(CLM_FREQ5 + MVR_PTS + INCOME), data = df1, family = "ZAGA")
# Mu Coefficients:
#              Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept) 8.203e+00  4.682e-02 175.218  < 2e-16 ***
# BLUEBOOK    2.053e-05  2.091e-06   9.816  < 2e-16 ***
# NPOLICY     6.948e-02  2.067e-02   3.362 0.000778 ***
# Nu Coefficients:
#               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept)  1.153e+00  5.077e-02   22.72   <2e-16 ***
# CLM_FREQ5   -3.028e-01  2.283e-02  -13.26   <2e-16 ***
# MVR_PTS     -1.509e-01  1.217e-02  -12.41   <2e-16 ***
# INCOME       7.285e-06  6.269e-07   11.62   <2e-16 ***

MAPE(df1$CLM_AMT, (1 - fitted(zaga1, what = "nu")) * fitted(zaga1, what = "mu"))
# 1.470228

Given the great flexibility of ZA models, we also have the luxury to explore other candidates than ZAGA. For instance, if the positive part of non-negative outcomes demonstrates a high variance, we can also try a zero-inflated Inverse Gaussian (ZAIG) model, as shown below.

zaig1 <- gamlss(CLM_AMT ~ BLUEBOOK + NPOLICY, nu.formula = ~(CLM_FREQ5 + MVR_PTS + INCOME), data = df1, family = "ZAIG")
# Mu Coefficients:
#              Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
# (Intercept) 8.205e+00  5.836e-02 140.591  < 2e-16 ***
# BLUEBOOK    2.163e-05  2.976e-06   7.268 3.97e-13 ***
# NPOLICY     5.898e-02  2.681e-02   2.200   0.0278 *  
# Nu Coefficients:
#               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
# (Intercept)  1.153e+00  5.077e-02   22.72   <2e-16 ***
# CLM_FREQ5   -3.028e-01  2.283e-02  -13.26   <2e-16 ***
# MVR_PTS     -1.509e-01  1.217e-02  -12.41   <2e-16 ***
# INCOME       7.285e-06  6.269e-07   11.62   <2e-16 ***

MAPE(df1$CLM_AMT, (1 - fitted(zaig1, what = "nu")) * fitted(zaig1, what = "mu"))
# 1.469236

Written by statcompute

September 17, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Model Operational Losses with Copula Regression

In the previous post (https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/model-operational-loss-directly-with-tweedie-glm), it has been explained why we should consider modeling operational losses for non-material UoMs directly with Tweedie models. However, for material UoMs with significant losses, it is still beneficial to model the frequency and the severity separately.

In the prevailing modeling practice for operational losses, it is often convenient to assume a functional independence between frequency and severity models, which might not be the case empirically. For instance, in the economic downturn, both the frequency and the severity of consumer frauds might tend to increase simultaneously. With the independence assumption, while we can argue that same variables could be included in both frequency and severity models and therefore induce a certain correlation, the frequency-severity dependence and the its contribution to the loss distribution might be overlooked.

In the context of Copula, the distribution of operational losses can be considered a joint distribution determined by both marginal distributions and a parameter measuring the dependence between marginals, of which marginal distributions can be Poisson for the frequency and Gamma for the severity. Depending on the dependence structure in the data, various copula functions might be considered. For instance, a product copula can be used to describe the independence. In the example shown below, a Gumbel copula is considered given that it is often used to describe the positive dependence on the right tail, e.g. high severity and high frequency. For details, the book “Copula Modeling” by Trivedi and Zimmer is a good reference to start with.

In the demonstration, we simulated both frequency and severity measures driven by the same set of co-variates. Both are positively correlated with the Kendall’s tau = 0.5 under the assumption of Gumbel copula.

library(CopulaRegression)
# number of observations to simulate
n <- 100
# seed value for the simulation
set.seed(2017)
# design matrices with a constant column
X <- cbind(rep(1, n), runif(n), runif(n))
# define coefficients for both Poisson and Gamma regressions
p_beta <- g_beta <- c(3, -2, 1)
# define the Gamma dispersion
delta <- 1
# define the Kendall's tau
tau <- 0.5
# copula parameter based on tau
theta <- 1 / (1 - tau)
# define the Gumbel Copula 
family <- 4
# simulate outcomes
out <- simulate_regression_data(n, g_beta, p_beta, X, X, delta, tau, family, zt = FALSE)
G <- out[, 1]
P <- out[, 2]

After the simulation, a Copula regression is estimated with Poisson and Gamma marginals for the frequency and the severity respectively. As shown in the model estimation, estimated parameters with related inferences are different between independent and dependent assumptions.

m <- copreg(G, P, X, family = 4, sd.error = TRUE, joint = TRUE, zt = FALSE)
coef <- c("_CONST", "X1", "X2")
cols <- c("ESTIMATE", "STD. ERR", "Z-VALUE")
g_est <- cbind(m$alpha, m$sd.alpha, m$alpha / m$sd.alpha)
p_est <- cbind(m$beta, m$sd.beta, m$beta / m$sd.beta)
g_est0 <- cbind(m$alpha0, m$sd.alpha0, m$alpha0 / m$sd.alpha0)
p_est0 <- cbind(m$beta0, m$sd.beta0, m$beta0 / m$sd.beta0)
rownames(g_est) <- rownames(g_est0) <- rownames(p_est) <- rownames(p_est0) <- coef
colnames(g_est) <- colnames(g_est0) <- colnames(p_est) <- colnames(p_est0) <- cols

# estimated coefficients for the Gamma regression assumed dependence 
print(g_est)
#          ESTIMATE  STD. ERR   Z-VALUE
# _CONST  2.9710512 0.2303651 12.897141
# X1     -1.8047627 0.2944627 -6.129003
# X2      0.9071093 0.2995218  3.028526

# estimated coefficients for the Gamma regression assumed dependence 
print(p_est)
#         ESTIMATE   STD. ERR   Z-VALUE
# _CONST  2.954519 0.06023353  49.05107
# X1     -1.967023 0.09233056 -21.30414
# X2      1.025863 0.08254870  12.42736

# estimated coefficients for the Gamma regression assumed independence 
# should be identical to GLM() outcome
print(g_est0)
#         ESTIMATE  STD. ERR   Z-VALUE
# _CONST  3.020771 0.2499246 12.086727
# X1     -1.777570 0.3480328 -5.107478
# X2      0.905527 0.3619011  2.502140

# estimated coefficients for the Gamma regression assumed independence 
# should be identical to GLM() outcome
print(p_est0)
#         ESTIMATE   STD. ERR   Z-VALUE
# _CONST  2.939787 0.06507502  45.17536
# X1     -2.010535 0.10297887 -19.52376
# X2      1.088269 0.09334663  11.65837

If we compare conditional loss distributions under different dependence assumptions, it shows that the predicted loss with Copula regression tends to have a fatter right tail and therefore should be considered more conservative.

df <- data.frame(g = G, p = P, x1 = X[, 2], x2 = X[, 3])
glm_p <- glm(p ~ x1 + x2, data = df, family = poisson(log))
glm_g <- glm(g ~ x1 + x2, data = df, family = Gamma(log))
loss_dep <- predict(m, X, X, independence = FALSE)[3][[1]][[1]]
loss_ind <- fitted(glm_p) * fitted(glm_g)
den <- data.frame(loss = c(loss_dep, loss_ind), lines = rep(c("DEPENDENCE", "INDEPENDENCE"), each = n))
ggplot(den, aes(x = loss, fill = lines)) + geom_density(alpha = 0.5)

loss2

Written by statcompute

August 20, 2017 at 5:22 pm

Using Tweedie Parameter to Identify Distributions

In the development of operational loss models, it is important to identify which distribution should be used to model operational risk measures, e.g. frequency and severity. For instance, why should we use the Gamma distribution instead of the Inverse Gaussian distribution to model the severity?

In my previous post https://statcompute.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/modified-park-test-in-sas, it is shown how to use the Modified Park test to identify the mean-variance relationship and then decide the corresponding distribution of operational risk measures. Following the similar logic, we can also leverage the flexibility of the Tweedie distribution to accomplish the same goal. Based upon the parameterization of a Tweedie distribution, the variance = Phi * (Mu ** P), where Mu is the mean and P is the power parameter. Depending on the specific value of P, the Tweedie distribution can accommodate several important distributions commonly used in the operational risk modeling, including Poisson, Gamma, Inverse Gaussian. For instance,

  • With P = 0, the variance would be independent of the mean, indicating a Normal distribution.
  • With P = 1, the variance would be in a linear form of the mean, indicating a Poisson-like distribution
  • With P = 2, the variance would be in a quadratic form of the mean, indicating a Gamma distribution.
  • With P = 3, the variance would be in a cubic form of the mean, indicating an Inverse Gaussian distribution.

In the example below, it is shown that the value of P is in the neighborhood of 1 for the frequency measure and is near 3 for the severity measure and that, given P closer to 3, the Inverse Gaussian regression would fit the severity better than the Gamma regression.

library(statmod)
library(tweedie)

profile1 <- tweedie.profile(Claim_Count ~ Age + Vehicle_Use, data = AutoCollision, p.vec = seq(1.1, 3.0, 0.1), fit.glm = TRUE)
print(profile1$p.max)
# [1] 1.216327
# The P parameter close to 1 indicates that the claim_count might follow a Poisson-like distribution

profile2 <- tweedie.profile(Severity ~ Age + Vehicle_Use, data = AutoCollision, p.vec = seq(1.1, 3.0, 0.1), fit.glm = TRUE)
print(profile2$p.max)
# [1] 2.844898
# The P parameter close to 3 indicates that the severity might follow an Inverse Gaussian distribution

BIC(glm(Severity ~ Age + Vehicle_Use, data = AutoCollision, family = Gamma(link = log)))
# [1] 360.8064

BIC(glm(Severity ~ Age + Vehicle_Use, data = AutoCollision, family = inverse.gaussian(link = log)))
# [1] 350.2504

Together with the Modified Park test, the estimation of P in a Tweedie distribution is able to help us identify the correct distribution employed in operational loss models in the context of GLM.

Written by statcompute

June 24, 2017 at 10:55 pm