MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736245285 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v8n3p154

Equity Return Modeling and Prediction Using Hybrid ARIMA-GARCH Model

2017· article· en· W2736245285 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaiying Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityAkaike information criterionEconometricsHeteroscedasticityAutoregressive modelVolatility clusteringVolatility (finance)UnivariateTime seriesComputer scienceEconomicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a hybrid ARIMA-GARCH model is proposed to model and predict the equity returns for three US benchmark indices: Dow Transportation, S&P 500 and VIX. Equity returns are univariate time series data sets, one of the methods to predict them is using the Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models. Despite the fact that the ARIMA models are powerful and flexible, they are not be able to handle the volatility and nonlinearity that are present in the time series data. However, the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models are designed to capture volatility clustering behavior in time series. In this paper, we provide motivations and descriptions of the hybrid ARIMA-GARCH model. A complete data analysis procedure that involves a series of hypothesis testings and a model fitting procedure using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is provided in this paper as well. Simulation results of out of sample predictions are also provided in this paper as a reference.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.105 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207