Incorporating the Bühlmann credibility into mortality models to improve forecasting performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we incorporate the Bühlmann credibility into three mortality models (the Lee–Carter model, the Cairns–Blake–Dowd model, and a linear relational model) to improve their forecasting performances, as measured by the MAPE (mean absolute percentage error), using mortality data for the UK. The results show that the MAPE reduction ratios for the three mortality models with the Bühlmann credibility are all significant. More importantly, the MAPEs under the three mortality models with the Bühlmann credibility are very close to each other for each age and forecast year. Thus, by incorporating the Bühlmann credibility we are able to converge the forecasting MAPEs resulting from the three different mortality models to a lower and more consistent level. Moreover, we provide a credibility interpretation with an individual time trend for age x and a group time trend for all ages. Finally, we apply the forecasted mortality rates both with and without the Bühlmann credibility to the net single premiums of life insurance products, and compare the corresponding MAPEs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".