Modelling mortality: A bayesian factor-augmented var (favar) approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Longevity risk is putting more and more financial pressure on governments and pension plans worldwide due to pensioners’ increasing trend of life expectancy and the growing numbers of people reaching retirement age. Lee and Carter (1992, Journal of the American Statistical Association , 87 (419), 659–671.) applied a one-factor dynamic factor model to forecast the trend of mortality improvement, and the model has since become the field’s workhorse. It is, however, well known that their model is subject to the limitation of overlooking cross-dependence between different age groups. We introduce Factor-Augmented Vector Autoregressive (FAVAR) models to the mortality modelling literature. The model, obtained by adding an unobserved factor process to a Vector Autoregressive (VAR) process, nests VAR and Lee–Carter models as special cases and inherits both frameworks’ advantages. A Bayesian estimation approach, adapted from the Minnesota prior, is proposed. The empirical application to the US and French mortality data demonstrates our proposed method’s efficacy in both in-sample and out-of-sample performance.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".