MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020439483 · doi:10.1198/073500102288618513

Conditional Jump Dynamics in Stock Market Returns

2002· article· en· W2020439483 on OpenAlexafffund
Wing Hong Chan, John M. Maheu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economic Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJumpEconometricsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityAutoregressive modelConditional probability distributionVolatility (finance)HeteroscedasticityMathematicsStock (firearms)Conditional varianceConditional expectationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops a new conditional jump model to study jump dynamics in stock market returns. We propose a simple filter to infer ex post the distribution of jumps. This permits construction of the shock affecting the time t conditional jump intensity and is the main input into an autoregressive conditional jump intensity model. The model allows the conditional jump intensity to be time-varying and follows an approximate autoregressive moving average (ARMA) form. The time series characteristics of 72 years of daily stock returns are analyzed using the jump model coupled with a generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) specification of volatility. We find significant time variation in the conditional jump intensity and evidence of time variation in the jump size distribution. The conditional jump dynamics contribute to good in-sample and out-of-sample fits to stock market volatility and capture the rally often observed in equity markets following a significant downturn.

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)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations363
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Economic StatisticsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207