MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FORECASTING VOLATILITY IN THE PRESENCE OF MODEL INSTABILITY

2010· article· en· W2106878673 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Maheu, Jonathan J. Reeves, Xuan Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconometricsInstabilityForward volatilityStochastic volatilityEconomicsImplied volatilityMathematicsRealized variance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Recent advances in financial econometrics have allowed for the construction of efficient ex post measures of daily volatility. This paper investigates the importance of instability in models of realised volatility and their corresponding forecasts. Testing for model instability is conducted with a subsampling method. We show that removing structurally unstable data of a short duration has a negligible impact on the accuracy of conditional mean forecasts of volatility. In contrast, it does provide a substantial improvement in a model's forecast density of volatility. In addition, the forecasting performance improves, often dramatically, when we evaluate models on structurally stable data.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of StatisticsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207