MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788150211 · doi:10.1080/07350015.2017.1415910

A New Approach to Volatility Modeling: The Factorial Hidden Markov Volatility Model

2018· article· en· W2788150211 on OpenAlexaff
Maciej Augustyniak, Luc Bauwens, Arnaud Dufays

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economic Statistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconometricsStochastic volatilityMarkov chainForward volatilityLeverage (statistics)Implied volatilityComputer scienceEconomicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new process—the factorial hidden Markov volatility (FHMV) model—is proposed to model financial returns or realized variances. Its dynamics are driven by a latent volatility process specified as a product of three components: a Markov chain controlling volatility persistence, an independent discrete process capable of generating jumps in the volatility, and a predictable (data-driven) process capturing the leverage effect. An economic interpretation is attached to each one of these components. Moreover, the Markov chain and jump components allow volatility to switch abruptly between thousands of states, and the transition matrix of the model is structured to generate a high degree of volatility persistence. An empirical study on six financial time series shows that the FHMV process compares favorably to state-of-the-art volatility models in terms of in-sample fit and out-of-sample forecasting performance over time horizons ranging from 1 to 100 days. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.254
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 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Economic StatisticsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207