On Financial Distributions Modelling Methods: Application on Regression Models for Time Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The financial market is a complex system with chaotic behavior that can lead to wild swings within the financial system. This can drive the system into a variety of interesting phenomenon such as phase transitions, bubbles, and crashes, and so on. Of interest in financial modelling is identifying the distribution and the stylized facts of a particular time series, as the distribution and stylized facts can determine if volatility is present, resulting in financial risk and contagion. Regression modelling has been used within this study as a methodology to identify the goodness-of-fit between the original and generated time series model, which serves as a criterion for model selection. Different time series modelling methods that include the common Box–Jenkins ARIMA, ARMA-GARCH type methods, the Geometric Brownian Motion type models and Tsallis entropy based models when data size permits, can use this methodology in model selection. Determining the time series distribution and stylized facts has utility, as the distribution allows for further modelling opportunities such as bivariate regression and copula modelling, apart from the usual forecasting. Determining the distribution and stylized facts also allows for the identification of the parameters that are used within a Geometric Brownian Motion forecasting model. This study has used the Carbon Emissions Futures price between the dates of 1 May 2012 and 1 May 2022, to highlight this application of regression modelling.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".