MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028030002 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14120583

Dimension Reduction via Penalized GLMs for Non-Gaussian Response: Application to Stock Market Volatility

2021· article· en· W3028030002 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tao Li, Anthony F. Desmond, Thanasis Stengos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsStock marketVolatility (finance)GaussianUnivariateEconomicsLasso (programming language)MathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsMultivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We fit U.S. stock market volatilities on macroeconomic and financial market indicators and some industry level financial ratios. Stock market volatility is non-Gaussian distributed. It can be approximated by an inverse Gaussian (IG) distribution or it can be transformed by Box–Cox transformation to a Gaussian distribution. Hence, we used a Box–Cox transformed Gaussian LASSO model and an IG GLM LASSO model as dimension reduction techniques and we attempted to identify some common indicators to help us forecast stock market volatility. Via simulation, we validated the use of four models, i.e., a univariate Box–Cox transformation Gaussian LASSO model, a three-phase iterative grid search Box–Cox transformation Gaussian LASSO model, and both canonical link and optimal link IG GLM LASSO models. The latter two models assume an approximately IG distributed response. Using these four models in an empirical study, we identified three macroeconomic indicators that could help us forecast stock market volatility. These are the credit spread between the U.S. Aaa corporate bond yield and the 10-year treasury yield, the total outstanding non-revolving consumer credit, and the total outstanding non-financial corporate bonds.

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)0.004
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207