Asymmetry in mortality volatility and its implications on index-based longevity hedging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mortality volatility is crucially important to many aspects of index-based longevity hedging, including instrument pricing, hedge calibration and hedge performance evaluation. This paper sets out to develop a deeper understanding of mortality volatility and its implications on index-based longevity hedging. First, we study the potential asymmetry in mortality volatility by considering a wide range of generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH)-type models that permit the volatility of mortality improvement to respond differently to positive and negative mortality shocks. We then investigate how the asymmetry of mortality volatility may impact index-based longevity hedging solutions by developing an extended longevity Greeks framework, which encompasses longevity Greeks for a wider range of GARCH-type models, an improved version of longevity vega, and a new longevity Greek known as “dynamic Delta”. Our theoretical work is complemented by two real-data illustrations, the results of which suggest that the effectiveness of an index-based longevity hedge could be significantly impaired if the asymmetry in mortality volatility is not taken into account when the hedge is calibrated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".