Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA/CAS Preliminary Exams > Short-Term Actuarial Math
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


Short-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam C Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-05-2009, 06:50 PM
ambersue's Avatar
ambersue ambersue is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Studying for FSA Modules
College: University of South Carolina Alumni
Favorite beer: Abita Purple Haze
Posts: 6
Default SOA 289 #15 / ASM 46.27

Quote:
You are given:
  1. The probability that an insured will have at least one loss during any year is p.
  2. The prior distribution for p is uniform on [0,0.5].
  3. An insured is observed for 8 years and has at least one loss every year.
Determine the posterior probability that the insured will have at least one loss during Year 9.
When answering this problem, I treated it as a Bernoulli/Beta conjugate with m=8 and k=8. I then solved for E[p|m,k] = a* / (a*+b*) = 9/10. However, since the prior distribution was uniform on [0,0.5] instead of [0,1], I adjusted my answer by 0.5. I arrived at the correct solution of 0.45, but I wanted to know if this was a fluke or if a similar adjustment would always work in cases where the prior is uniform on some interval [0,c]. Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-05-2009, 08:11 PM
badmaj5's Avatar
badmaj5 badmaj5 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 454
Default

I was under the impression that the beta/bernoulli trick only worked when the uniform was [0,1].
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-05-2009, 09:31 PM
Abraham Weishaus Abraham Weishaus is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,184
Default

Your trick works with 0.5 replaced by any other real number between 0 and 1 and "8" replaced by any other integer, and even with the uniform replaced by a beta distribution with b=1. Beyond that is harder for me to see.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-06-2009, 07:19 AM
Jim Daniel's Avatar
Jim Daniel Jim Daniel is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Davis, CA
College: Wabash College B.A. 1962, Stanford Ph.D. 1965
Posts: 2,680
Default

My recollection is that for this to work you need to have all successes and no failures.

Jim Daniel
__________________
Jim Daniel
Jim Daniel's Actuarial Seminars
www.actuarialseminars.com
jimdaniel@actuarialseminars.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-08-2009, 04:20 PM
badmaj5's Avatar
badmaj5 badmaj5 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus View Post
Your trick works with 0.5 replaced by any other real number between 0 and 1 and "8" replaced by any other integer, and even with the uniform replaced by a beta distribution with b=1. Beyond that is harder for me to see.
ASM Practice Exam 6, question 4:

The first line of the solution states "We cannot use the bernoulli/beta shortcut here since the uniform distribution is only up to .5"

I tried doing it using the shortcut and then just multiplying it by .5 at the end, and that gives me .375. What is different here?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-08-2009, 04:21 PM
Abraham Weishaus Abraham Weishaus is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,184
Default

Jim Daniel already answered your question.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-08-2009, 04:26 PM
badmaj5's Avatar
badmaj5 badmaj5 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 454
Default

So just to be sure I have it straight -

When we have uniform [0,1], the "regular" shortcut always works.

If we have uniform [0, b], and we observe 0 claims, then it would be (regular shortcut)*b.

But since in this problem, we observe 1 claim (not all successes), we must work it from first principles.

Is that accurate?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-19-2017, 11:44 AM
davina davina is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
College: Alumni
Posts: 4
Default Exam C SOA Sample #15

I am struggling with the last part of the solution to this Bayesian credibility problem. My understanding is that I can get the probability during the year 9 by integrating the posterior density function over 0 to 0.5. Why is the solution's integrand the posterior density multiply by p? Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-19-2017, 01:31 PM
mattcarp mattcarp is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Studying for Exam 6
College: UC Berkeley
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davina View Post
I am struggling with the last part of the solution to this Bayesian credibility problem. My understanding is that I can get the probability during the year 9 by integrating the posterior density function over 0 to 0.5. Why is the solution's integrand the posterior density multiply by p? Thank you.
If you integrate the posterior density you will get 1. You need to integrate the posterior times the probability of what you want, given the parameter. Here we want the probability of one or more claims, which is given as p. Thus we integrate the posterior times p.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-19-2017, 02:10 PM
davina davina is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
College: Alumni
Posts: 4
Default

Your explanation makes sense and helps, thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asm, bayes, conjugate, soa

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.62302 seconds with 11 queries