Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Combining Linear and Non Linear Modeling Techniques


Published on

Salford Systems demonstrates how to combine linear and non-linear predictive modeling.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Combining Linear and Non Linear Modeling Techniques

  1. 1. EMB America + Salford SystemsGetting the best of Two Worlds
  2. 2.  Who is EMB? Insurance industry predictive modeling applications EMBLEM- our GLM tool How we have used CART with EMBLEM Case studies Other areas of expected synergies
  3. 3.  Global network of p&c insurance consultants servicing clients throughout the world (insert globe)
  4. 4.  Predictive Modeling Ratemaking & Profitability Analysis Underwriting & Credit Scoring Enterprise Risk Management, Pro Forma, Business Planning Retention & Conversion Modeling New Program Development Competitive Analysis Reinsurance Program Analysis Reserve Analysis & Opinion Letters Software Development & Software Support Expert Witness Testimony Regulatory Support & Law Analysis
  5. 5.  EMB’s suite of software products cover all aspects of personal and commercial lines of insurance ◦ EMBLEM ◦ Rate Assessor ◦ Classifier ◦ Igloo Professional ◦ ExtrEMB ◦ ResQ Professional ◦ PrisEMB ◦ RePro
  6. 6.  We use EMBLEM, a GLM tool, for our predictive modeling needs Why?
  7. 7.  Primary application: ◦ Estimating the cost of the product they sell (insurance) two steps:  Reserving= estimating the cost of outstanding insurance claims  Pricing= estimating the cost of future insurance coverage Secondary applications ◦ Retention Modeling= probability that a policyholder will renew ◦ Conversion Modeling= probability that a prospective policyholder will purchase a policy ◦ Price Optimization ◦ Claim fraud detection ◦ Marketing
  8. 8.  Goal is to develop a unique rate for every risk ◦ Don’t think in terms of good/bad risks ◦ State Farm/Allstate vs GEICO/Progressive ◦ Quickly exhausts the data  Credibility/ variability/ stability Risks are described by the predictor variables, not the target. ◦ Need to have a mapping of the predictor variable levels to a target value- not the other way around  Other way around makes it difficult to derive impact of individual predictor variables  Important because actual data often does not describe all possible combinations of potential customers
  9. 9.  Highly regulated marketplace ◦ Restrictions  Predictors can and cannot use  Credit scores  Rules on values for the predictors  Ages 65+ relativities cannot be >110% of ages 40-60  Maximum rate change between adjacent territories  Rules on predictor order and magnitude of importance  CA Sequential Analysis (driving record>annual mileage>years held license) ◦ Regulatory Approval  Rates need to be supported  Black box methodologies will not be accepted
  10. 10.  Response variable is continuous/discrete function (insert graph) ◦ Gamma consistent with severity modeling, or even Inverse Gaussian (insert graph) ◦ Poisson consistent with frequency modeling No single trial/outcome ◦ Trial is measured in terms of time ◦ Actual policy length varies tremendously because of changes  Marital status  New car  moved
  11. 11.  In 1996, EMB designed EMBLEM to provide access to GLM for statisticians and non-statisticians pricing personal and commercial insurance EMBLEM revolutionized the use of GLM’s, enabling analysis that was previously either impossible or too time-consuming to be worth attempting EMBLEM is now used by over 100 insurance companies globally: ◦ 18 of the top 20 personal auto writers in the UK ◦ 50 companies in the US including 8 of the top 10 personal auto writers Fastest GLM tool with the capability to model millions of observations in seconds with a host of diagnostic tools: ◦ Graphical, practical, statistical, automated. ◦ Stand-alone software package that can be integrated with a variety of external software including SAS® ◦ Microsoft® Visual Basic® for Applications provides ultimate flexibility
  12. 12.  GLM characteristics work to our advantage ◦ Exponential family does an excellent job of describing the underlying components of insurance losses ◦ Output of the model is in the form of Beta parameters which can easily be converted to rate relativities ◦ EMBLEM is not automated  User has complete control over the model structure  Complete diagnostic tools to assist the modeler with decisions
  13. 13.  In terms of estimating the cost of insurance: ◦ UK has embraced predictive modeling  Experienced with its techniques  Knowledgeable with the factors that tend to be predictive ◦ US is learning about predictive modeling  Saturation with big players in personal lines marketplace  Companies not using predictive modeling techniques are being adversely selected against  Now expanding dimensionality of databases  Still fairly new concept in commercial lines marketplace  Big players are using techniques but historical rating structures are hindering the rapid expansion
  14. 14.  Result? ◦ UK is expanding into secondary applications  Retention modeling  Conversion modeling  Price optimization  Claim fraud detection ◦ Because Predictive Modeling has been around for some time in the UK, the datasets are getting larger in terms of the number of predictors to evaluate ◦ Experienced US companies are beginning to evaluate the secondary applications ◦ Marketing is used in a manner similar to other industries
  15. 15.  How does CART fit into this? ◦ As we transition into the secondary applications we move from modeling a continuous function to a binary function  Tree-based techniques can add value to the analysis Retention and Conversion modeling ◦ Accept/ Reject target variable ◦ Desirable smooth surface ◦ Price optimization integrates these with premium models Marketing and Fraud detection ◦ Classic tree applications
  16. 16.  Using CART and EMBLEM ◦ Goal is to play off of the strengths of each tool CART strengths ◦ Automatic separation of relevant from irrelevant predictors ◦ Easily rank-orders variable importance ◦ Automatic interaction detection (requires additional work) ◦ Captures multiple structures within a dataset rather than a single dominant structure ◦ Can handle missing values and is impervious to outliers
  17. 17.  EMBLEM Strengths ◦ User has control over the model structure ◦ Ease of communication/conceptualization- effects of each explanatory variable is transparent ◦ Provides predicted response values for new data points
  18. 18.  CART ◦ Factor selection ◦ Interaction detection ◦ Model validation EMBLEM ◦ Model structure ◦ Incorporating time/seasonality trend effects ◦ Implementation of results
  19. 19.  Both CART and EMBLEM are excellent tools both of which produce consistent results in similar situations ◦ This is not an exercise of seeing which is better The purpose of this discussion is to show how efficiencies can be gained in the modeling process ◦ As datasets get larger in terms of the number of predictors time becomes a crucial element
  20. 20.  Retention modeling assignment ◦ 97,227 observations  Each observation represents one trial/outcome  Split 50/50 between training/test datasets ◦ 11 predictors  Grand total number of levels:147
  21. 21.  Modeling Process ◦ Started with Forward Entry Regression  Automated process  Used Chi-Squared statistic for testing significance  Took about 30 minutes to run ◦ Significant factors (8)  Rating Area  Vehicle Category  Age  NCD  Driver Restriction  Vehicle Age  Change Over Last Year’s Premium  Market Competitiveness
  22. 22.  Build a model with no factors and add based on prespecified criteria regarding improvement in model fit: (insert table) Add the factor that performed the best on the Chi Square test. (Policyholder Age) Iterate process with the new base model until no further factors indicated removal
  23. 23.  Compared results with CART/ TreeNet ◦ Significant factors were essentially the same ◦ Model predictiveness was the same (ROC=0.7) Interactions ◦ No significant interactions were found by EMBLEM or CART Test Dataset ◦ ROC=0.7
  24. 24.  Retention modeling assignment ◦ 198,386 observations  Each observation represented one trial/outcome  Split 50/50 between training/test datasets ◦ 135 predictors  Grand total number of levels: approx 3,752
  25. 25.  Forward Entry Regression ◦ Found 57 predictors to be significant ◦ Took a weekend to run Comparison to CART/ TreeNet ◦ Found 24 significant predictors ◦ Top 15 based on variable importance were also found by EMBLEM ◦ Correlations with the rest of the predictors Through the modeling process we reduced the number of predictors to 26
  26. 26.  Interactions ◦ We relied on indications from CART/ TreeNet ◦ 6 interactions were identified and included in the model EMBLEM Results ◦ Training ROC= .862 ◦ Test ROC= .85
  27. 27.  Variable importance Segmentation Super-Profiling
  28. 28.  CART excels at identifying different segments in data CART may also help determine where to segment data Segmentation is a useful alternative to fitting many interactions ◦ Example: In a automobile insurance renewal problem, a CART analysis showed several occurrences of a split between those policyholders with just one years duration and those with a greater duration This suggests segmenting the data into two parts: ◦ Policies renewing with one year duration ◦ Policies renewing with more than one year
  29. 29.  After a GLM model is constructed use CART to model the residuals to see if any patterns exists ◦ If a pattern is discovered, go back to the model structure and incorporate the findings ◦ Test to see if model structure was inadvertently over-simplified