MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037592550 · doi:10.1002/for.2716

Forecast performance and bubble analysis in noncausal MAR(1, 1) processes

2020· article· en· W3037592550 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Gouriéroux, Andrew Hencic, Joann Jasiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFutures contractEconometricsEstimatorNonlinear systemBubbleTerm (time)GaussianVariance (accounting)MathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Lévy processApplied mathematicsEconomicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceStatisticsFinancial economicsPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the performance of nonlinear short‐term forecasts of noncausal processes from closed‐form functional predictive density estimators. The processes considered have mixed causal–noncausal MAR(1, 1) dynamics and non‐Gaussian distributions with either finite or infinite variance. The quality of point forecasts is affected by spikes and bubbles in the trajectories of these processes, which also characterize many financial and economic time series. This is due to deformations of estimated predictive densities from multimodality during explosive episodes. We show that two‐step‐ahead predictive densities of future trajectories based on the MAR(1, 1) Cauchy process can be used as a new graphical tool for early detection of bubble outsets and bursts. The method is applied to the Bitcoin/US dollar exchange rates and commodity futures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ForecastingSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207