MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072733280 · doi:10.1515/jtse-2013-0013

Constrained Hamiltonian Monte Carlo in BEKK GARCH with Targeting

2013· article· en· W2072733280 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Burda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Time Series Econometrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCovarianceCurse of dimensionalityMathematicsMonte Carlo methodApplied mathematicsEconometricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The GARCH class of models for dynamic conditional covariances trades off flexibility with parameter parsimony. The unrestricted BEKK GARCH dominates its restricted scalar and diagonal versions in terms of model fit, but its parameter dimensionality increases quickly with the number of variables. Covariance targeting has been proposed as a way of reducing parameter dimensionality, but for the BEKK with targeting the imposition of positive definiteness on the conditional covariance matrices presents a significant challenge. In this article, we suggest an approach based on Constrained Hamiltonian Monte Carlo that can deal effectively both with the nonlinear constraints resulting from BEKK targeting and the complicated nature of the BEKK likelihood in relatively high dimensions. We perform a model comparison of the full BEKK and the BEKK with targeting, indicating that the latter dominates the former in terms of marginal likelihood. Thus, we show that the BEKK with targeting presents an effective way of reducing parameter dimensionality without compromising the model fit, unlike the scalar or diagonal BEKK. The model comparison is conducted in the context of an application concerning a multivariate dynamic volatility analysis of a foreign exchange rate returns portfolio.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Time Series EconometricsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207