MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804672944 · doi:10.1080/07350015.2020.1737533

Testing the Multivariate Regular Variation Model

2020· article· en· W2804672944 on OpenAlexaff
J.H.J. Einmahl, Fan Yang, Chen Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economic Statistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsVariation (astronomy)Component (thermodynamics)StatisticsMathematicsExtreme value theoryValue (mathematics)EconometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we propose a test for the multivariate regular variation (MRV) model. The test is based on testing whether the extreme value indices of the radial component conditional on the angular component falling in different subsets are the same. Combining the test on the constancy across extreme value indices in different directions with testing the regular variation of the radial component, we obtain the test for testing MRV. Simulation studies demonstrate the good performance of the proposed tests. We apply this test to examine two datasets used in previous studies that are assumed to follow the MRV model.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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