Financial applications of ARMA models with GARCH errors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Financial returns are often modeled as stationary time series with innovations having heteroscedastic conditional variances. This paper seeks to derive the kurtosis of stationary processes with GARCH errors. The problem of hypothesis testing for stationary ARMA(p, q) processes with GARCH errors is studied. Forecasting of ARMA(p, q) processes with GARCH errors is also discussed in some detail. Design/methodology/approach – Estimating-function methodology was the principal method used for the research. The results were also illustrated using examples and simulation studies. Volatility modeling is the subject of the paper. Findings – The kurtosis of stationary processes with GARCH errors is derived in terms of the model parameters (?), ?-weights, and the kurtosis of the innovation process. Hypothesis testing for stationary ARMA(p, q) processes with GARCH errors based on the estimating-function approach is shown to be superior to the least-squares approach. The fourth moment of the l-steps-ahead forecast error is related to the model parameters and the kurtosis of the innovation process. Originality/value – This paper will be of value to econometricians and to anyone with an interest in the statistical properties of volatility modeling.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it