MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084126948 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11137

Testing for intercept‐scale switch in linear autoregression

2012· article· en· W2084126948 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Florian Ketterer, Hajo Holzmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsAutoregressive modelVolatility (finance)EconometricsSeries (stratigraphy)Nonlinear systemVariance (accounting)Stock (firearms)EconomicsMathematicsEngineeringAccountingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Autoregressive models with switching regime are a frequently used class of nonlinear time series models, which are popular in finance, engineering, and other fields. We consider linear switching autoregressions in which the intercept and variance possibly switch simultaneously, while the autoregressive parameters are structural and hence the same in all states, and we propose quasi‐likelihood‐based tests for a regime switch in this class of models. Our motivation is from financial time series, where one expects states with high volatility and low mean together with states with low volatility and higher mean. We investigate the performance of our tests in a simulation study, and give an application to a series of IBM monthly stock returns. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 427–446; 2012 © 2012 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 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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207