Simulation Framework to Determine Suitable Innovations for Volatility Persistence Estimation: The GARCH Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study rolls out a robust framework relevant for simulation studies through the Generalised Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) model using the rugarch package. The package is thoroughly investigated, and novel findings are identified for improved and effective simulations. The focus of the study is to provide necessary simulation steps to determine appropriate distributions of innovations relevant for estimating the persistence of volatility. The simulation steps involve “background (optional), defining the aim, research questions, method of implementation, and summarised conclusion”. The method of implementation is a workflow that includes writing the code, setting the seed, setting the true parameters a priori, data generation process and performance assessment through meta-statistics. These novel, easy-to-understand steps are demonstrated on financial returns using illustrative Monte Carlo simulation with empirical verification. Among the findings, the study shows that regardless of the arrangement of the seed values, the efficiency and consistency of an estimator generally remain the same as the sample size increases. The study also derived a new and flexible true-parameter-recovery measure which can be used by researchers to determine the level of recovery of the true parameter by the MCS estimator. It is anticipated that the outcomes of this study will be broadly applicable in finance, with intuitive appeal in other areas, for volatility 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".