Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the role of various volatility specifications, such as multiple stochastic volatility (SV) factors and jump components, in appropriate modeling of equity return distributions. We use estimation technology that facilitates nonnested model comparisons and use a long data set which provides rich information about the conditional and unconditional distribution of returns. We consider two broad families of models: (1) the multifactor loglinear family, and(2) the affine-jump family. Both classes of models have attracted much attention in the derivatives and econometrics literatures. There are various tradeoffs in considering such diverse specifications. If pure diffusion SV models are chosen over jump diffusions, it has important implications for hedging strategies. If logarithmic models are chosen over affine ones, it may seriously complicate option pricing. Comparing many different specifications of pure diffusion multifactor models and jump diffusion models, we find that (1) log linear models have to be extended to two factors with feedback in the mean reverting factor, (2) affine models have to have a jump in returns, stochastic volatility or probably both. Models (1) and (2) are observationally equivalent on the data set in hand. In either (1) or (2) the key is that the volatility can move violently. As we obtain models with comparable empirical fit, one must make a choice based on arguments other than statistical goodness-of-fit criteria. The considerations include facility to price options, to hedge and parsimony. The affine specification with jumps in volatility might therefore be preferred because of the closed-form derivatives prices.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".