MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2084868040

Regularization of the Kalman Filter for Exogenous Outlier Removal: Application to Hedge Funds Analysis

2011· article· en· W2084868040 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Emmanuelle, Patrick Duvaut, Serge Darolles, Christian Gouriéroux

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutlierKalman filterRegularization (linguistics)EconometricsHedge fundGaussianMathematicsFinite impulse responseComputer scienceAlgorithmApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationEconomicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceFinancePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a simple and efficient exogenous outlier detection & estimation algorithm introduced in a regularized version of the Kalman Filter (KF). Exogenous outliers that may occur in the observations are considered as an additional stochastic impulse process in the KF observation equation that requires a regularization of the innovation in the KF recursive equations. Regularizing with a l1- or l2-norm needs to determine the value of the regularization parameter. Since the KF innovation error is assumed to be Gaussian we propose to first detect the possible occurrence of an exogenous impulsive spike and then to estimate its amplitude using an adapted value of the regularization parameter. The algorithm is first validated on synthetic data and then applied to a concrete financial case that deals with the analysis of hedge fund returns. The proposed algorithm can detect anomalies frequently observed in hedge returns such as illiquidity issues.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→