MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976853586 · doi:10.1214/19-ejs1595

The tail empirical process for long memory stochastic volatility models with leverage

2019· article· en· W2976853586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Journal of Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorLeverage (statistics)MathematicsEconometricsStochastic volatilityVolatility (finance)Long memoryLimitingEmpirical researchStatistical physicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider tail empirical processes of long memory stochastic volatility models with heavy tails and leverage. We study the limiting behaviour of the tail empirical process with both fixed and random levels. We show a dichotomous behaviour for the tail empirical process with fixed levels, according to the interplay between the long memory parameter and the tail index; leverage does not play a role. On the other hand, the tail empirical process with random levels is not affected by either long memory or leverage. The tail empirical process with random levels is used to construct a family of estimators of the tail index, including the famous Hill estimator and harmonic mean estimators. The paper can be viewed as an extension of [21] while the presence of leverage in the model creates additional theoretical problems, the limiting behaviour remains unchanged.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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