Hurst Exponent Analysis: Evidence from Volatility Indices and the Volatility of Volatility Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we analyze the volatility of volatility indices and estimate the Hurst parameter using data from five international markets. For our analysis, we consider daily data from VIX (CBOE), VXN (CBOE Nasdaq 100), VXD (DJIA), VHSI (HSI), and KSVKOSPI (KOSPI). The period of analysis is from January 2001 to December 2021 and incorporates various market phases, such as booms and crashes. The novelty here is the use of recent methodology, including different range-based estimators for volatility analysis. We apply the Hurst exponent to the volatility measures Vgk,t, Vp,t, Vrs,t, and Vs,t, and then estimate the volatility of volatility indices through the GARCH(1, 1) model. Based on the values of the Hurst exponent, we analyze the trace of the behavior of three trading strategies, i.e., the momentum-based strategy, the random walk, and the mean-reversion strategy. The results are highly recommended for financial analysts dealing with volatility indices as well as for financial researchers.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".