A Markov regime‐switching model for crude‐oil markets: Comparison of composite likelihood and full likelihood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use the two‐state Markov regime‐switching model to explain the behaviour of the WTI crude‐oil spot prices from January 1986 to February 2012. We investigated the use of methods based on the composite likelihood and the full likelihood. We found that the composite‐likelihood approach can better capture the general structural changes in world oil prices. The two‐state Markov regime‐switching model based on the composite‐likelihood approach closely depicts the cycles of the two postulated states: fall and rise. These two states persist for on average 8 and 15 months, which matches the observed cycles during the period. According to the fitted model, drops in oil prices are more volatile than rises. We believe that this information can be useful for financial officers working in related areas. The model based on the full‐likelihood approach was less satisfactory. We attribute its failure to the fact that the two‐state Markov regime‐switching model is too rigid and overly simplistic. In comparison, the composite likelihood requires only that the model correctly specifies the joint distribution of two adjacent price changes. Thus, model violations in other areas do not invalidate the results. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 353–367; 2013 © 2013 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".