MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259178 · doi:10.3390/jrfm12020088

Threshold Stochastic Conditional Duration Model for Financial Transaction Data

2019· article· en· W2259178 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Zhongxian Men, Adam W. Kolkiewicz, Tony S. Wirjanto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThreshold modelEconometricsWeibull distributionMarkov chain Monte CarloParticle filterMathematicsConditional probability distributionStatisticsBayesian probabilityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a variant of a threshold stochastic conditional duration (TSCD) model for financial data at the transaction level. It assumes that the innovations of the duration process follow a threshold distribution with a positive support. In addition, it also assumes that the latent first-order autoregressive process of the log conditional durations switches between two regimes. The regimes are determined by the levels of the observed durations and the TSCD model is specified to be self-excited. A novel Markov-Chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) is developed for parameter estimation of the model. For model discrimination, we employ deviance information criteria, which does not depend on the number of model parameters directly. Duration forecasting is constructed by using an auxiliary particle filter based on the fitted models. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed TSCD model and MCMC method work well in terms of parameter estimation and duration forecasting. Lastly, the proposed model and method are applied to two classic data sets that have been studied in the literature, namely IBM and Boeing transaction 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.239
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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207