Collated mortality insights
These are the collated mortality insights from all my blog articles.
Insight 1. Always allow for overdispersion
If you don’t allow for overdispersion then you will underestimate uncertainty and overfit models.
Insight 2. Experience data is ‘measurable‘
Provided we use measures, we’ll always get the same answer regardless of how an experience dataset is partitioned.
In particular, there is no need
Insight 3. The continuous time definitions of A and E are canonical
The continuous time definitions of \(A\) and \(E\) are measures and the canonical definitions of actual and expected deaths.
Other definitions can lead to confusion – usually over \(\text{E}\) vs true expectation – and spurious complexity.
Insight 4. The expected value of A−E is zero
If \(\mu\) is the true mortality then the expected value of \(\text{A}f-\text{E}f\) is zero, i.e.
\[\mathbb{E}\big(\text{A}f-\text{E}f\big)=0\]
- for any variable \(f\) (even if \(f\) was used to fit the mortality in question), and
- for any subset of the experience data (provided the choice of subset does not depend on E2R information).
Insight 5. The same machinery that defines A−E can be used to estimate its uncertainty
If \(\mu\) is the true mortality then, before allowing for overdispersion, the variance of \(\text{A}f-\text{E}f\) equals the expected value of \(\text{E}f^2\), i.e.
\[\text{Var}\big(\text{A}f-\text{E}f\big)=\mathbb{E}\big(\text{E}f^2\big)\]
Allowing for overdispersion \(\Omega\), this becomes
\[\text{Var}\big(\text{A}f-\text{E}f\big)=\Omega\,\mathbb{E}\big(\text{E}f^2\big)\]
Insight 6. A/E variance increases with concentration
\(\sqrt{\text{E}w^2} / \text{E}w\), where \(w\ge0\) is a useful and recurring measure of effective concentration in relation to mortality uncertainty. It implies that the more concentrated the experience data (in some sense) then the greater the variance of observed mortality.
Using unweighted variance without adjustment to estimate weighted statistics will likely understate risk.
Insight 7. Log-likelihood can be defined directly in terms of the \(\text{A}\) and \(\text{E}\) operators
The log-likelihood written in terms of the \(\text{A}\) and \(\text{E}\) operators is
\[L=\text{A}w\log\mu-\text{E}w\]
where \(w\ge0\) is the weight variable.
(This is before allowing for overdispersion.)
Insight 8. Proportional hazards models are probably all you need for mortality modelling
The proportional hazards model
\[\mu(\beta) = \mu^\text{ref}\exp\Big(\beta^\text{T}X\Big)\]
is
- highly tractable, and
- sufficiently powerful to cope with almost all practical mortality modelling problems.
Insight 9. An estimate of the variance of the fitted parameters for a proportional hazards mortality model is available in closed form for any ad hoc log-likelihood weight
\[\text{Var}\big(\hat\beta\big)\mathrel{\hat=} \Omega\,\mathbf{I}^{-1}\mathbf{J}\mathbf{I}^{-1}\]
where \(\hat\beta\) is the maximum likelihood estimator of the covariate weights, \(X\) is the vector of covariates, \(w\ge0\) is the log-likelihood weight, \(\mathbf{I}=\text{E}wXX^\text{T}\), \(\mathbf{J}=\text{E}w^2XX^\text{T}\) and \(\Omega\) is overdispersion
Caveat: \(w\) is an ad hoc reallocation of log-likelihood; it is not relevance.
Insight 10. A penalised log-likelihood for a proportional hazards mortality model is available in closed form for any ad hoc log-likelihood weight
\[L_\text{P}= L(\hat\beta)-\text{tr}\big(\mathbf{J}\mathbf{I}^{-1}\big)\]
where \(\hat\beta\) is the maximum likelihood estimator of the covariate weights, \(X\) is the vector of covariates, \(L\) is the log-likelihood (which has already been adjusted for overdispersion), \(w\ge0\) is the log-likelihood weight, \(\mathbf{I}=\text{E}wXX^\text{T}\) and \(\mathbf{J}=\text{E}w^2XX^\text{T}\).
Caveat: \(w\) is an ad hoc reallocation of log-likelihood; it is not relevance.
Insight 11. Adjusting globally for overdispersion is reasonable and straightforward
If \(\Omega\) is global overdispersion then:
-
A standard method for allowing for overdispersion is to scale log-likelihood by \(\Omega^{-1}\) and variances by \(\Omega\).
-
Suitable default values for mortality experience data are \(2\le\Omega\le3\).
-
Use the same \(\Omega\) for all candidate models being tested, including when \(\Omega\) is being estimated from the experience data at hand.
Insight 12. Rating factors must be coherent
In order for a function of information associated with individuals to be valid as a rating factor, it must be coherent, which means:
- No foreknowledge of death
- Correspondence between exits and survivors
- Comparability between individuals
- Comparability by time
Insight 13. Take care when using pension as a rating factor
Be wary of phrases like ‘just use pension as a covariate’ because it trivialises the problems involved in making pension a coherent rating factor:
- Pensions for individuals in different pension plans are not directly comparable. For general pension plan mortality models consider using leave-one out cross validation to understand this risk and/or using an alternative approach.
- Pensions as at date of exit need careful adjustment to be consistent with pensions of survivors (which can be non trivial for UK DB plans).
- Pensions for actives require additional consideration in relation to potential future accrual.
- Consideration needs to be given to whether or how to adjust pensions for inflation (typically since retirement). This is more of an issue in pension systems where indexation of pensions in payment is less common (e.g. the USA).
- Do not assume that longevity always increases with benefit amount.
-
An obvious example is excluding mortality experience from the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially resulting in non-contiguous data from before and after the excluded time period. ↩
-
Tracking individuals across experience datasets for different time periods may however be a very sensible data check. ↩