Modeling the Exchange Rate Volatility Using the BRICS GARCH-type Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper models the performance of GARCH-type models on BRICS exchange rates volatility. The levels of interdependence and dynamic connection among the BRICS financial markets using appropriate univariate time series models were evaluated for the period January 2008 to January 2018. The results revealed the presence of ARCH effects in the BRICS exchange rates. The univariate GARCH models for the BRICS exchange rates were fitted to the data using Student t-distribution. The GARCH (1,1) model found the unconditional volatility for each of the BRICS exchange rates series while EGARCH (1,1) and TGARCH (1,1) models presented the leverage effect. Moreover, the EGARCH (1,1) model illustrated that the asymmetric effects dominate the symmetric effects except for South Africa. The TGARCH (1,1) model on the other hand revealed contrary findings. The paper recommends a study be considered to draw comparison on the different types of GARCH models on the time varying integrated data other than the ones used in the paper.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".