MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971874720 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11522

Inference for a change‐point problem under an OU setting with unequal and unknown volatilities

2019· article· en· W2971874720 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Fuqi Chen, Rogemar Mamon, Sévérien Nkurunziza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWestern UniversityHealth Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorConsistency (knowledge bases)EconometricsInferenceSeries (stratigraphy)Point processPoint (geometry)Flexibility (engineering)Computer scienceEstimationMathematicsStatisticsApplied mathematicsAlgorithmEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU) process is employed as a versatile model to capture the mean‐reverting and stochastic evolution of many variables in various fields of applications including finance and economics. Within the OU setting, we develop a new estimation method to determine the unknown change‐point location under the assumption that the volatilities before and after the change point in a time series are unequal. Our method hinges on the concept of a weighted least sum of squared errors approach and enhanced by a fusion of an iterative algorithm. The consistency of the change‐point estimator is established. This article highlights a numerical implementation on simulated and observed financial market data demonstrating the significant flexibility and accuracy of our proposed modelling and estimation method. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 62–78; 2020 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207