MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122250864

Time-Deformation Modeling Of Stock Returns Directed By Duration Processes

2008· preprint· en· W3122250864 on OpenAlexaff
Dingan Feng, Peter X.‐K. Song, Tony S. Wirjanto

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsStochastic volatilityVolatility (finance)Autoregressive modelStock (firearms)Computer scienceEconomicsMathematicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new class of time-deformation (or stochastic volatility) models for stock returns sampled in transaction time and directed by a generalized duration process. Stochastic volatility in this model is driven by an observed duration process and a latent autoregressive process. Parameter estimation in the model is carried out by using the method of simulated moments (MSM) due to its analytical feasibility and numerical stability for the proposed model. Simulations are conducted to validate the choices of the moments used in the formulation of the MSM. Both the simulation and empirical results obtained in this paper indicate that this approach works well for the proposed model. The main empirical findings for the IBM transaction return data can be summarized as follows: (i) the return distribution conditional on the duration process is not Gaussian, even though the duration process itself can marginally function as a directing process; (ii) the return process is highly leveraged; (iii) a longer trade duration tends to be associated with a higher return volatility; and (iv) the proposed model is capable of reproducing return whose marginal density function is close to that of the empirical return.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207