A Spatial Interpolation Framework for Efficient Valuation of Large Portfolios of Variable Annuities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variable Annuity (VA) products expose insurance companies to considerable risk because of the guarantees they provide to buyers of these products. Managing and hedging these risks require insurers to find the values of key risk metrics for a large portfolio of VA products. In practice, many companies rely on nested Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to find key risk metrics. MC simulations are computationally demanding, forcing insurance companies to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in computational infrastructure per year. Moreover, existing academic methodologies are focused on fair valuation of a single VA contract, exploiting ideas in option theory and regression. In most cases, the computational complexity of these methods surpasses the computational requirements of MC simulations. Therefore, academic methodologies cannot scale well to large portfolios of VA contracts. In this paper, we present a framework for valuing such portfolios based on spatial interpolation. We provide a comprehensive study of this framework and compare existing interpolation schemes. Our numerical results show superior performance, in terms of both computational effciency and accuracy, for these methods compared to nested MC simulations. We also present insights into the challenge of finding an effective interpolation scheme in this framework, and suggest guidelines that help us build a fully automated scheme that is effcient and accurate.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it