A study on life insurance premiums under asymmetric dependence using Canadian insurance data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the impact of symmetric and asymmetric dependence on premium calculations for various annuity and life insurance products across different age groups. Initially, we determined the marginal survival probabilities for individual lifetimes at specific ages using the Gompertz mortality model. Subsequently, joint survival probabilities were derived, considering independent and dependent future lifetimes for individuals within a group. The dependency structure was examined using Archimedean copulas for symmetric models and Khoudraji copulas for asymmetric models, which are widely referenced in the literature. In addition, actuarial calculations were conducted using real data on dependent lifetimes sourced from a Canadian insurance company. The data set is divided into three different populations based on age differences between married couples: the entire population without considering age differences, the population where males are older, and the population where females are older. The symmetric and asymmetric dependence structures of these populations were determined using an asymmetry test. The best-fitting models were identified using maximum likelihood estimation and goodness-of-fit tests. Finally, actuarial calculations were performed on the data set. Our findings showed that there were no significant differences between symmetric and asymmetric premium calculations for the whole population. However, when the population is disaggregated by age, the asymmetry becomes evident in the data structures, which increases the differences in the premium calculations. For example, the Kho-Fr model selected for the population of older female exhibiting asymmetric dependency was generally found to produce higher premiums than the Gumbel model. These findings reveal the importance of determining the dependency structure and working with age-based sub-populations rather than treating the whole population as a homogenous structure in model selection.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".