MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101216171 · doi:10.3982/ecta5971

Bootstrapping Realized Volatility

2008· article· en· W2101216171 on OpenAlexaff
Śılvia Gonçalves, Nour Meddahi

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometrica · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic volatilityVolatility (finance)Bootstrapping (finance)LogarithmMathematicsIndependent and identically distributed random variablesApplied mathematicsAsymptotic expansionLeverage (statistics)Nonlinear systemEconometricsRandom variableStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose bootstrap methods for a general class of nonlinear transformations of realized volatility which includes the raw version of realized volatility and its logarithmic transformation as special cases. We consider the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) bootstrap and the wild bootstrap (WB), and prove their first-order asymptotic validity under general assumptions on the log-price process that allow for drift and leverage effects. We derive Edgeworth expansions in a simpler model that rules out these effects. The i.i.d. bootstrap provides a second-order asymptotic refinement when volatility is constant, but not otherwise. The WB yields a second-order asymptotic refinement under stochastic volatility provided we choose the external random variable used to construct the WB data appropriately. None of these methods provides third-order asymptotic refinements. Both methods improve upon the first-order asymptotic theory in finite samples.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.109 · 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
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

Citations163
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometricaSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207