LEARNING OBJECTIVES I. Interest Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Financial Mathematics Exam is a three-hour, multiple-choice examination that is administered by Preliminary Actuarial Examinations/SOA and is referred to as Exam FM by the SOA and Exam 2 by the CAS. The examination is jointly sponsored and administered by the CAS, SOA, and the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA). The examination is also jointly sponsored by the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) and the Conference of Consulting Actuaries (CCA). The Financial Mathematics Exam is administered as a computer-based test. For additional details, please refer to “Computer-Based Testing Rules and Procedures”. The goal of the syllabus for this examination is to provide an understanding of the fundamental concepts of financial mathematics, and how those concepts are applied in calculating present and accumulated values for various streams of cash flows as a basis for future use in: reserving, valuation, pricing, asset/liability management, investment income, capital budgeting, and valuing contingent cash flows. The candidate will also be given an introduction to financial instruments, including derivatives, and the concept of no-arbitrage as it relates to financial mathematics. The Financial Mathematics Exam assumes a basic knowledge of calculus and an introductory knowledge of probability. The following learning objectives are presented with the understanding that candidates are allowed to use specified calculators on the exam. The education and examination of candidates reflects that fact. In particular, such calculators eliminate the need for candidates to learn and be examined on certain mathematical methods of approximation. Please check the Updates section on this exam's home page for any changes to the exam or syllabus.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".