A Hypothesis Test Method for Detecting Multifractal Scaling, Applied to Bitcoin Prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multifractal processes reproduce some of the stylised features observed in financial time series, namely heavy tails found in asset returns distributions, and long-memory found in volatility. Multifractal scaling cannot be assumed, it should be established; however, this is not a straightforward task, particularly in the presence of heavy tails. We develop an empirical hypothesis test to identify whether a time series is likely to exhibit multifractal scaling in the presence of heavy tails. The test is constructed by comparing estimated scaling functions of financial time series to simulated scaling functions of both an iid Student t-distributed process and a Brownian Motion in Multifractal Time (BMMT), a multifractal processes constructed in Mandelbrot et al. (1997). Concavity measures of the respective scaling functions are estimated, and it is observed that the concavity measures form different distributions which allow us to construct a hypothesis test. We apply this method to test for multifractal scaling across several financial time series including Bitcoin. We observe that multifractal scaling cannot be ruled out for Bitcoin or the Nasdaq Composite Index, both technology driven assets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".