MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robust estimation of the sample mean variance for Gaussian processes with long-range dependence

2017· article· en· W2792277507 on OpenAlexaff
Lenin Arango-Castillo, Glen Takahara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultitaperEstimatorMathematicsHurst exponentStatisticsGaussian processWaveletGaussianParametric statisticsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a method to robustly estimate the variance of the sample mean for two Gaussian processes exhibiting Long-Range Dependence (LRD): fractional Gaussian noise, fGn(H), and fractional autoregressive integrated moving average, FARIMA(0, H, 0) processes. Our method is based on a combination of two estimators of H which are functions of a multitaper estimator of the log spectral density: a robust estimator which uses a limited number of frequencies near the origin, and an estimator which uses (almost) all of the frequencies. An important feature of our method is a test to differentiate between fGn(H) and FARIMA(0, H, 0) which, under a correct decision, allows us to estimate the Hurst parameter H using the correct model specification. Differentiating between fGn(H) and FARIMA(0, H, 0) with Gaussian innovations is important to estimate the sample mean variance and for statistical inference about the process location parameter. Numerical comparisons are made against existing estimators including parametric and semi-parametric methods in Fourier frequency and wavelet domains.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207