Use of Prediction Bias in Active Learning and Its Application to Large Variable Annuity Portfolios
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
Given the computational challenges associated with valuing large variable annuity (VA) portfolios, a variety of data mining frameworks, including metamodeling and active learning, have been proposed in recent years. Active learning, a promising alternative to metamodeling, enhances the efficiency of VA portfolio assessments by adaptively improving a predictive regression model. This is achieved by augmenting data for model training with strategically selected informative samples. Successful application of active learning requires an effective metric in order to gauge the informativeness of data. Current sampling methods, which focus on prediction error-based informativeness, typically rely solely on prediction variance and assume an unbiased predictive model. In this paper, we address the fact that prediction bias can be nonnegligible in large VA portfolio valuation and investigate the impact of prediction bias in both the modeling and sampling stages of active learning. Our experimental results suggest that bias-based sampling can rival the efficacy of traditional ambiguity-based sampling, with its success contingent upon the extent of bias present in the predictive model.
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 | 0.000 | 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