Point and interval forecasts of mortality rates and life expectancy: a comparison of ten principal component methods

Published on 15 July 2011 in Refereed papers

Han Lin Shang1, Heather Booth2 and Rob J Hyndman1

  1. Depart­ment of Eco­no­met­rics & Busi­ness Stat­ist­ics, Mon­ash Uni­ver­sity, Clayton, Australia
  2. The Aus­tralian Demo­graphic & Social Research Insti­tute, Aus­tralian National Uni­ver­sity, Can­berra, Australia.

Demo­graphic Research (2011), 25(5), 173–214.

Revised: 5 April 2011

Abstract:
Using the age– and sex-​​specific data of 14 developed coun­tries, we com­pare the point and inter­val fore­cast accur­acy and bias of ten prin­cipal com­pon­ent meth­ods for fore­cast­ing mor­tal­ity rates and life expect­ancy. The ten meth­ods are vari­ants and exten­sions of the Lee-​​Carter method. Based on one-​​step fore­cast errors, the weighted Hyndman-​​Ullah method provides the most accur­ate point fore­casts of mor­tal­ity rates and the Lee-​​Miller method is the least biased. For the accur­acy and bias of life expect­ancy, the weighted Hyndman-​​Ullah method per­forms the best for female mor­tal­ity and the Lee-​​Miller method for male mor­tal­ity. While all meth­ods under­es­tim­ate vari­ab­il­ity in mor­tal­ity rates, the more com­plex Hyndman-​​Ullah meth­ods are more accur­ate than the sim­pler meth­ods. The weighted Hyndman-​​Ullah method provides the most accur­ate inter­val fore­casts for mor­tal­ity rates, while the robust Hyndman-​​Ullah method provides the best inter­val fore­cast accur­acy for life expectancy.

Keywords: Mor­tal­ity fore­cast­ing, life expect­ancy fore­cast­ing, prin­cipal com­pon­ent meth­ods, Lee-​​Carter method, inter­val fore­casts, fore­cast­ing time series.

Online art­icle