On Asymmetric Correlations and Their Applications in Financial Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress on asymmetric correlations of asset returns has recently advanced considerably. Asymmetric correlations can cause problems in hedging effectiveness and overstate the value of diversification. Furthermore, considering the asymmetric correlations in portfolio construction significantly enhances performance. The purpose of this paper is to trace developments and identify areas that require further research. We examine three aspects of asymmetric correlations: first, the existence of asymmetric correlations between asset returns and their significance tests; second, the test on the existence of asymmetric correlations between different markets and financial assets; and third, the root cause analysis of asymmetric correlations. In the first part, the contents of extreme value theory, the H statistic and a model-free test are covered. In the second part, commonly used models such as copula and GARCH are included. In addition to the GARCH and copula formulations, many other methods are included, such as regime switching, the Markov switching model, and the multifractal asymmetric detrend cross-correlation analysis method. In addition, we compare the advantages and differences between the models. In the third part, the causes of asymmetry are discussed, for example, higher common fundamental risk, correlation of individual fundamental risk, and so on.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".