MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528960478 · doi:10.1080/07474938.2013.808478

Time-Deformation Modeling of Stock Returns Directed by Duration Processes

2014· article· en· W1528960478 on OpenAlexaff
Dingan Feng, Peter X.‐K. Song, Tony S. Wirjanto

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsVolatility (finance)Duration (music)Autoregressive modelStochastic volatilityComputer scienceStock (firearms)MathematicsEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new time-deformation model for stock returns sampled in transaction time and directed by a generalized duration process. Stochastic volatility in this model is driven by an observed duration process and a latent autoregressive process. Parameter estimation in the model is carried out by using a method of simulated moments (MSM) due to its analytical tractability and numerical stability for the proposed model. Simulations are conducted to validate the choice of moments used in the formulation of MSM. Both simulation and empirical results indicate that the proposed MSM works well for the model. The main empirical findings from the analysis of IBM transaction return data include: (i) the return distribution conditional on the duration process is not Gaussian, even though the duration process itself can marginally serve as a directing process; (ii) the return process is highly leveraged; (iii) longer trade duration tends to be associated with higher return volatility; and (iv) the proposed model is capable of reproducing a return process whose marginal density function is close to that of the empirical return process.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207