Stephen recently questioned whether the hype around AI models for Life Insurance might be a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. In this blog we discuss an important point of difference: whereas in the fable, a youth reveals the expensive "invisible" new clothes have no substance at all, in our scenario, we find precisely the opposite. AI models utilising machine learning are, far from being see-through, simply not transparent enough.

In Macdonald et al (2018, Section 2.5) we describe the importance of deduplication, i.e. the identification of individuals behind multiple policies.  This is a critical step for a statistical model, as lives can be regarded as independent, whereas the mortality experience of two or more policies written on the same life clearly are not.

When we first wrote our survival-modelling software in late 2005, we had to decide how to represent dates for the purpose of calculating exposure times.  We decided to adopt a real-valued approach, e.g. 14th March 1968 would be represented as 1968.177596 (the fractional part is \(\frac{31+29+14}{366}\), since 1968 is a leap year).

In my previous blog I described a real case where so-called artificial intelligence (AI) would have struggled to spot data problems that a (suspicious) human could find.  But what if the input data are clean and reliable?

There is emerging hype about the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to mortality analysis, specifically the use of machine learning via neural networks. In this blog I provide a counter-example that illustrates why the human element is an absolutely indispensable part of actuarial work, and why I think it always will be.

Regular readers of this blog (both of them) will have noticed how often we advocate that actuaries use the Kaplan-Meier estimator in their mortality analysis.  While parametric survival models are best for multi-factor models, the Kaplan-Meier estimate is exceptionally useful for visualisation, communication and data-quality checking.

Stephen and I recently presented a pair of papers to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries: Richards & Macdonald (2024) and Macdonald & Richards (2024).  In these papers we encourage actuaries to use continuous-time models in their work. But where does that leave discrete-time?

The World Health Organization (WHO) makes available a one-page checklist for use by surgical teams. The WHO claims that this checklist has made "significant reduction in both morbidity and mortality" and is "now used by a majority of surgical providers around the world".  For example, the checklist is used by surgical teams in NHS England.

In Richards & Macdonald (2024) we advocate that actuaries use the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival curve.  This is not just because it is an excellent visual communication tool, but also because it is a particularly useful data-quality check.

In a recent blog, I looked at the most fundamental unit of observation in a mortality study, namely an individual life. But is there such a thing as a fundamental unit of modelling mortality?  In Macdonald & Richards (2024) we argue that there is, namely an infinitesimal Bernoulli trial based on the mortality hazard.