[PRE REVIEW]: Actuarial Open Source Benchmarks: Performance testing actuarial models on CPU and GPU

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@MatthewCaseres<!--end-author-handle-- (Matthew Caseres) Repository: https://github.com/actuarialopensource/benchmarks Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: NA Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/036105625a33262468d1a45b005ba284"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/036105625a33262468d1a45b005ba284/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/036105625a33262468d1a45b005ba284/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/036105625a33262468d1a45b005ba284)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @MatthewCaseres. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@MatthewCaseres if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.11 s (620.8 files/s, 449681.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              5              0              0          40259
Python                          26           1913           2260           2359
R                                3            309            218            857
Julia                           10             51              8            351
Markdown                         9             77              0            275
YAML                             5              2              4            214
TeX                              1             19              0            136
JSON                             4              5              0             46
TOML                             3              3              0             34
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            526             26
Dockerfile                       1              5              5             12
make                             1              1              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            69           2385           3021          44572
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    65  serenity4
    49  github-actions[bot]
    45  Matthew Caseres
    36  MatthewCaseres
    10  Alec Loudenback
     3  m
     1  Zuzanna

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 705

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning – Practi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Tables Database Goes XtbML
- No DOI given, and none found for title: An actuary’s guide to Julia: Use cases and perform...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Experience Study Calculations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Future of Actuarial Modeling
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Application of GPU in Actuarial Modeling
- No DOI given, and none found for title: lifelib: life actuarial models
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Testing lifelib on GPU
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Running a heavy model while saving memory
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LifeSimulator.jl: Simulation of insurance products...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Introduction to Using Graphical Processing Units f...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: 2021 US Life Insurance Pricing Survey Highlights
- No DOI given, and none found for title: actxps: Create Actuarial Experience Studies: Prepa...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: MortalityTables.jl: SOA mortality tables in Julia
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ExperienceAnalysis.jl: Calculate exposures
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pymort: SOA mortality tables in Python

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

@MatthewCaseres – many thanks for your submission to JOSS. I'm going to start a scope review amongst the JOSS editors to decide if this submission is research software as defined by JOSS. This does not mean that it is not software that is useful in research, but just that JOSS might not consider it in scope for review as research software.

If you have any additional supporting statements about this, feel free to share them here.

This process will likely take a week or so to complete.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[MatthewCaseres]

@arfon I believe it is research software because it:

• Presents the first life actuarial models compiled with an AI compiler.
• Applies a memory optimization algorithm to increase modeling capacity on GPU in a novel way.

The GPU models I feel are certainly research software, some of the other stuff maybe not. The research software is mixed in with the practical purposes software because at the end of the day they are all benchmarks.

If there is any feedback on what I can do to make a better submission please let me know.

[samhforbes]

Hi @MatthewCaseres following scope review by on-topic editors, this package was deemed to be out of scope as research software. Again I'd like to stress that this does not mean there's no application in research, but simply it doesn't meet the journal's definition of research software.

[samhforbes]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.