MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279704908 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1601.04351

On bivariate lifetime modelling in life insurance applications

2016· preprint· en· W2279704908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
François Dufresne, Enkelejd Hashorva, Gildas Ratovomirija, Youssouf A. F. Toukourou

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)Bivariate analysisNoveltyEconometricsActuarial scienceJoint probability distributionLife insuranceMathematicsStatisticsEconomicsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insurance and annuity products covering several lives require the modelling of the joint distribution of future lifetimes. In the interest of simplifying calculations, it is common in practice to assume that the future lifetimes among a group of people are independent. However, extensive research over the past decades suggests otherwise. In this paper, a copula approach is used to model the dependence between lifetimes within a married couple \eH{using data from a large Canadian insurance company}. As a novelty, the age difference and the \eH{gender} of the elder partner are introduced as an argument of the dependence parameter. \green{Maximum likelihood techniques are} thus implemented for the parameter estimation. Not only do the results make clear that the correlation decreases with age difference, but also the dependence between the lifetimes is higher when husband is older than wife. A goodness-of-fit procedure is applied in order to assess the validity of the model. Finally, considering several products available on the life insurance market, the paper concludes with practical illustrations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207