MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040195493 · doi:10.1017/asb.2020.21

A STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING THE MAXIMAL STRENGTH OF TAIL DEPENDENCE

2020· article· en· W3040195493 on OpenAlexaff
Ning Sun, Chen Yang, Ričardas Zitikis

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorEconometricsStatistical inferenceTail dependenceInferenceMathematicsIndex (typography)StatisticsDiagonalStatistical physicsEconomicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several diagonal-based tail dependence indices have been suggested in the literature to quantify tail dependence. They have well-developed statistical inference theories but tend to underestimate tail dependence. For those problems when assessing the maximal strength of dependence is important (e.g., co-movements of financial instruments), the maximal tail dependence index was introduced, but it has so far lacked empirical estimators and statistical inference results, thus hindering its practical use. In the present paper, we suggest an empirical estimator for the index, explore its statistical properties, and illustrate its performance on simulated data.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207