Risk, Return and Volatility Feedback: A Bayesian Nonparametric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we let the data speak for itself about the existence of volatility feedback and the often debated risk–return relationship. We do this by modeling the contemporaneous relationship between market excess returns and log-realized variances with a nonparametric, infinitely-ordered, mixture representation of the observables’ joint distribution. Our nonparametric estimator allows for deviation from conditional Gaussianity through non-zero, higher ordered, moments, like asymmetric, fat-tailed behavior, along with smooth, nonlinear, risk–return relationships. We use the parsimonious and relatively uninformative Bayesian Dirichlet process prior to overcoming the problem of having too many unknowns and not enough observations. Applying our Bayesian nonparametric model to more than a century’s worth of monthly US stock market returns and realized variances, we find strong, robust evidence of volatility feedback. Once volatility feedback is accounted for, we find an unambiguous positive, nonlinear, relationship between expected excess returns and expected log-realized variance. In addition to the conditional mean, volatility feedback impacts the entire joint distribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".