MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965003173 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2014.922982

Sampling-based Inference of Time Deformation Models with Heavy Tail Distributions

2014· article· en· W1965003173 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongxian Men, Tony S. Wirjanto, Adam W. Kolkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloMetropolis–Hastings algorithmGibbs samplingInferenceStochastic volatilityComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Volatility (finance)Markov chainAlgorithmMonte Carlo methodApplied mathematicsMathematicsEconometricsStatistical physicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on simulation-based inference for the time-deformation models directed by a duration process. In order to better capture the heavy tail property of the time series of financial asset returns, the innovation of the observation equation is subsequently assumed to have a Student-t distribution. Suitable Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms, which are hybrids of Gibbs and slice samplers, are proposed for estimation of the parameters of these models. In the algorithms, the parameters of the models can be sampled either directly from known distributions or through an efficient slice sampler. The states are simulated one at a time by using a Metropolis-Hastings method, where the proposal distributions are sampled through a slice sampler. Simulation studies conducted in this article suggest that our extended models and accompanying MCMC algorithms work well in terms of parameter estimation and volatility forecast.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207