Akademisk avhandling
som för avläggande av filosofie
doktorsexamen
vid Stockholms universitet
offentligen försvaras i
hörsal 1, hus A Södra huset,
Frescati
fredagen den 18 april 1997 kl 10.00
av
Elizabeth Saers Bigün
fil lic
Statistiska institutionen
Stockholms universitet
ABSTRACT
We present a study on
risk analysis of rare events such as catastrophes by using expert assessments.
There are usually not sufficient data on the catastrophes. Hence, the risk
analysis of rare events requires other methods than the conventional statistics
may offer. A pragmatic approach to analyse catastrophe risks is to use
expert assessments. The risk analysis models in this thesis calibrate and
aggregate the expert assessments concerning the future in a Bayesian framework.
The assessment errors, which the models are based on, are assumed to have
multivariate normal distribution. We discuss risk analysis models both
when the assessment errors are assumed to be independent and dependent.
An empirical study
was performed on risk analysis of major civil aircraft accidents in Europe
by using expert assessments. The main goal was to investigate how the above
mentioned models worked in practice. The experts in the survey were from
Swedish Aviation Administration, the Board of Accident Investigation in
Sweden, the airline company SAS and the reinsurance company Skandia International
which has aviation underwriting. The expert assessments were about the
number of accidents and fatalities for the time period 1984-2003. The main
results of this study were (i) The models which we used in order to predict
the future risks seem to work satisfactorily. They took very well care
of experts who were too certain or uncertain in their assessments causing
under- or overestimation of risks. The aggregated models were mostly effected
by experts who had less assessment errors and at the same time had the
highest confidence, (ii) Calibration of the experts' assessed risks were
needed. (iii) We introduced two different methods to estimate the assessment
error variances of the experts. The first method was built on probability
assessments and the second method on interval assessments. The differences
between these two methods were not remarkably prominent. (iv) All individual
distributions were positively skewed. While, the aggregated distributions
were less skewed.
A simple sensitivity
analysis of the prediction models was performed. The main issues which
the sensitivity analysis treated were: (i) how different dependence assumptions
affected the predictions, (ii) if the prediction models were influenced
more by a certain type of dependence assumption than the other types, and
(iii) how the different values of the correlation coefficients affected
the predictions. The sensitivity analysiswas built on data from the above
mentioned survey. The main results of the sensitivity analysis were: (i)
introducing positive and equal correlation coefficients to the prediction
models increased the precision of the predictions and (iv) the correlation
between the time periods were more essential for the prediction estimations
than the correlations concerning the assessments between the groups of
experts.
ISBN 91-7153-580-2
Last update: 990916/CE