Forecasting mortality rates with functional signatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study introduces an innovative methodology for mortality forecasting, which integrates signature-based methods within the functional data framework of the Hyndman–Ullah (HU) model. This new approach, termed the Hyndman–Ullah with truncated signatures (HUts) model, aims to enhance the accuracy and robustness of mortality predictions. By utilizing signature regression, the HUts model is able to capture complex, nonlinear dependencies in mortality data which enhances forecasting accuracy across various demographic conditions. The model is applied to mortality data from 12 countries, comparing its forecasting performance against variants of the HU models across multiple forecast horizons. Our findings indicate that overall the HUts model not only provides more precise point forecasts but also shows robustness against data irregularities, such as those observed in countries with historical outliers. The integration of signature-based methods enables the HUts model to capture complex patterns in mortality data, making it a powerful tool for actuaries and demographers. Prediction intervals are also constructed with bootstrapping methods.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".