Modeling excesses remains to be an important topic in insurance data modeling. Among the alternatives to modeling excess, the Peaks Over Threshold (POT) framework with Generalized Pareto distribution (GPD) is regarded as an efficient approach due to its flexibility. However, selecting an appropriate threshold for such a framework is a major difficulty. To address such difficulty, we applied several accumulation tests along with Anderson-Darling test to determine an optimal threshold. Limited simulations were conducted to assess the performance of accumulation tests. Based on the selected thresholds, the fitted GPD with the estimated quantiles can be found. We applied the procedure to the wellknown Norwegian fire insurance data and AON Re Belgian fire loss data. With the selected thresholds, confidence intervals for the Value-at-Risks (VaR) were constructed correspondingly. The accumulation test approach provides satisfactory performance in modeling the VaR of both data sets compared to the previous graphical methods.
AminzadehM. S.DengM. (2019). Bayesian Predictive modeling for inverse gamma-pareto composite distribution. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 48(8), 1938–1954. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2018.1440595
2.
BaderB.YanJ.ZhangX. (2018). Automated threshold selection for extreme value analysis via ordered goodness-of-fit tests with adjustment for false discovery rate. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 12(1), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1214/17-AOAS1092
3.
BarberR. F.CandèsE. J. (2015). Controlling the false discovery rate via knockoffs. The Annals of Statistics, 43(5), 2055–2085. https://doi.org/10.1214/15-AOS1337
4.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
5.
BenjaminiY.YekutieliD. (2001, August). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics, 29(4), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998
6.
BrazauskasV.KleefeldA. (2016). Modeling severity and measuring tail risk of Norwegian fire claims. North American Actuarial Journal, 20(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10920277.2015.1062784
7.
Calderín-OjedaE. (2018). A note on parameter estimation in the composite weibull-pareto distribution. Risks, 6(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks6010011
8.
ChoulakianV.StephensM. A. (2001). Goodness-of-Fit tests for the generalized pareto distribution. Technometrics, 43(4), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.1198/00401700152672573
9.
ColesS. (2001). Threshold models. In ColesS. (Ed.). An Introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, (pp. 74–91). Springer.
10.
CoorayK.AnandaM. M. A. (2005). Modeling actuarial data with a composite lognormal-pareto model. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2005(5), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03461230510009763
11.
DavisonA. C.SmithR. L. (1990). Models for exceedances over high thresholds. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 52(3), 393442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1990.tb01796.x
12.
DengM.AminzadehM. S. (2022). Bayesian Predictive analysis for WeibullPareto composite model with an application to insurance data. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 51(5), 2683–2709. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2019.1699572
13.
GerstengarbeF. W.WernerP. C. (1989). A method for the statistical definition of extreme-value regions and their application to meteorological time series. Zeitschrift für Meteorologie, 39(4), 224–226.
GrünB.MiljkovicT. (2019). Extending composite loss models using a general framework of advanced computational tools. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2019(8), 642–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/03461238.2019.1596151
16.
G’SellM. G.WagerS.ChouldechovaA.TibshiraniR. (2016). Sequential selection procedures and false discovery rate control. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology, 78(2), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12122
17.
LangM.OuardaT. B. M. J.BobéeB. (1999). Towards operational guidelines for over-threshold modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 225(3), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00167-5
18.
LangousisA.MamalakisA.PuligaM.DeiddaR. (2016). Threshold detection for the generalized pareto distribution: Review of representative methods and application to the NOAA NCDC daily rainfall database. Water Resources Research, 52(4), 2659–2681. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018502
19.
LiA.BarberR. F. (2017). Accumulation tests for FDR control in ordered hypothesis testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(518), 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1180989
20.
LiuB.AnandaM. M. A. (2022). A generalized family of exponentiated composite distributions. Mathematics, 10(11), 1895. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10111895
21.
LiuB.AnandaM. M. A. (2023). Analyzing insurance data with an exponentiated composite inverse gamma-pareto model. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 52(21), 7618–7631. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2022.2050399
22.
McNeilA. J. (1997). Estimating the tails of loss severity distributions using extreme value theory. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 27(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.2143/AST.27.1.563210
23.
MutaliS.VernicR. (2022). On the composite lognormal-pareto distribution with uncertain threshold. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 51(8), 4492–4508. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2020.1743860
ReynkensT.VerbelenR. (2020). Reins: Functions from "reinsurance: Actuarial and statistical aspects" [computer software manual]. R Package Version, 1(0), 10.
26.
ScarrottC., & MacDonaldA. (2012). A review of extreme value threshold estimation and uncertainty quantification. Revstat Statistical Journal, 10, 33–60. https://doi.org/10.57805/revstat.v10i1.110
