MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937941984 · doi:10.1017/asb.2019.6

ECONOMIC SCENARIO GENERATOR AND PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY: A BAYESIAN APPROACH

2019· article· en· W2937941984 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐François Bégin

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety of Actuaries
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloEconometricsBayesian probabilityPortfolioContext (archaeology)Monte Carlo methodStatisticsInflation (cosmology)EconomicsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we study parameter uncertainty and its actuarial implications in the context of economic scenario generators. To account for this additional source of uncertainty in a consistent manner, we cast Wilkie’s four-factor framework into a Bayesian model. The posterior distribution of the model parameters is estimated using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and is used to perform Bayesian predictions on the future values of the inflation rate, the dividend yield, the dividend index return and the long-term interest rate. According to the US data, parameter uncertainty has a significant impact on the dispersion of the four economic variables of Wilkie’s framework. The impact of such parameter uncertainty is then assessed for a portfolio of annuities: the right tail of the loss distribution is significantly heavier when parameters are assumed random and when this uncertainty is estimated in a consistent manner. The risk measures on the loss variable computed with parameter uncertainty are at least 12% larger than their deterministic counterparts.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207