MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385878529 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16080377

Generalized Method of Moments Estimation of Realized Stochastic Volatility Model

2023· article· en· W4385878529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luwen Zhang, Li Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic volatilityGeneralized method of momentsMarkov chain Monte CarloVolatility (finance)EconometricsHeston modelFinancial models with long-tailed distributions and volatility clusteringMathematicsMoment (physics)Forward volatilityMarkov chainMonte Carlo methodSABR volatility modelStatisticsPanel data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to study the generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation procedures of the realized stochastic volatility model; we give the moment conditions for this model and then obtain the estimation of parameters. Then, we apply these moment conditions to the realized stochastic volatility model to improve the volatility prediction effect. This paper selects the Shanghai Composite Index (SSE) as the original data of model research and completes the volatility prediction under a realized stochastic volatility model. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimation and quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) estimation are applied to the parameter estimation of the realized stochastic volatility model to compare with the GMM method. And the volatility prediction accuracy of these three different methods is compared. The results of empirical research show that the effect of model prediction using the parameters obtained by the GMM method is close to that of the MCMC method, and the effect is obviously better than that of the quasi-maximum likelihood estimation method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207