How Frequently Does the Stock Price Jump? { An Analysis of High-Frequency Data with Microstructure Noises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stock price is assumed to follow a jump-diffusion process which may exhibit time-varying volatilities. An econometric technique is then developed for this model and applied to high-frequency time series of stock prices that are subject to microstructure noises. Our method is based on first devising a localized particle filter and then employing fixed-lag smoothing in the Monte Carlo EM algorithm to perform the maximum likelihood estimation and inference. Using the intra-day IBM stock prices, we find that high-frequency data are crucial to disentangling frequent small jumps from infrequent large jumps. During the trading sessions, jumps are found to be frequent but small in magnitude, which is in sharp contrast to infrequent but large jumps when the market is closed. We also find that at the 5- or 10-minute sampling frequency, the conclusion will critically depend on whether heavy-tailed microstructure noises have been accounted for. Ignoring microstructure noises can, for example, lead to an overestimation of the jump intensity of 50% or more.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".