Information Matrix

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.

Look in any good bookshop (or on Amazon) and you will find any number of books describing the spectacular failures of financial institutions.

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.

More than a decade ago, we first posted on public health interventions proposed or implemented by the Scottish Government. A key focus area from those initiatives, alcohol mortality, has recently reported status, and the news does not seem encouraging. Despite the introduction of a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol in 2018, Scottish alcohol deaths reached a new high in 2024.

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.

How should we describe a lifestyle change that doubles our likelihood of suffering a major traffic accident? Oddly,  evidence from Scotland suggests the answer is "worth making". Let me explain.

The short answer for mortality work is that your Poisson model is never truly Poisson. The longer answer is that the true distribution has a similar likelihood, so you will get the same answer from treating it like Poisson.  Your model is pseudo-Poisson, but not actually Poisson.

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.