Return and Risk of Pairs Trading Using a Simulation-Based Bayesian Procedure for Predicting Stable Ratios of Stock Prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the direct connection between the uncertainty related to estimated stable ratios of stock prices and risk and return of two pairs trading strategies: a conditional statistical arbitrage method and an implicit arbitrage one. A simulation-based Bayesian procedure is introduced for predicting stable stock price ratios, defined in a cointegration model. Using this class of models and the proposed inferential technique, we are able to connect estimation and model uncertainty with risk and return of stock trading. In terms of methodology, we show the effect that using an encompassing prior, which is shown to be equivalent to a Jeffreys’ prior, has under an orthogonal normalization for the selection of pairs of cointegrated stock prices and further, its effect for the estimation and prediction of the spread between cointegrated stock prices. We distinguish between models with a normal and Student t distribution since the latter typically provides a better description of daily changes of prices on financial markets. As an empirical application, stocks are used that are ingredients of the Dow Jones Composite Average index. The results show that normalization has little effect on the selection of pairs of cointegrated stocks on the basis of Bayes factors. However, the results stress the importance of the orthogonal normalization for the estimation and prediction of the spread—the deviation from the equilibrium relationship—which leads to better results in terms of profit per capital engagement and risk than using a standard linear normalization.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".