On almost sure limit theorems for detecting long-range dependent, heavy-tailed processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marcinkiewicz strong law of large numbers, ${n^{-\frac1p}}\sum_{k=1}^{n} (d_{k}- d)\rightarrow 0 $ almost surely with $p\in(1,2)$, are developed for products $d_k=\prod_{r=1}^s x_k^{(r)}$, where the $x_k^{(r)} = \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}c_{k-l}^{(r)}\xi_l^{(r)}$ are two-sided linear process with coefficients $\{c_l^{(r)}\}_{l\in \mathbb{Z}}$ and i.i.d. zero-mean innovations $\{\xi_l^{(r)}\}_{l\in \mathbb{Z}}$. The decay of the coefficients $c_l^{(r)}$ as $|l|\to\infty$, can be slow enough for $\{x_k^{(r)}\}$ to have long memory while $\{d_k\}$ can have heavy tails. The long-range dependence and heavy tails for $\{d_k\}$ are handled simultaneously and a decoupling property shows the convergence rate is dictated by the worst of long-range dependence and heavy tails, but not their combination. The results provide a means to estimate how much (if any) long-range dependence and heavy tails a sequential data set possesses, which is done for real financial data. All of the stocks we considered had some degree of heavy tails. The majority also had long-range dependence. The Marcinkiewicz strong law of large numbers is also extended to the multivariate linear process case.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".