Financial applications of ARMA models with GARCH errors
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".