On Comparing and Assessing Robustness of Some Popular Non-Stationary BINAR(1) Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intra-day transactions of stocks from competing firms in the financial markets are known to exhibit significant volatility and over-dispersion. This paper proposes some bivariate integer-valued auto-regressive models of order 1 (BINAR(1)) that are useful to analyze such financial series. These models were constructed under both time-variant and time-invariant conditions to capture features such as over-dispersion and non-stationarity in time series of counts. However, the quest for the most robust BINAR(1) models is still on. This paper considers specifically the family of BINAR(1)s with a non-diagonal cross-correlation structure and with unpaired innovation series. These assumptions relax the number of parameters to be estimated. Simulation experiments are performed to assess both the consistency of the estimators and the robust behavior of the BINAR(1)s under mis-specified innovation distribution specifications. The proposed BINAR(1)s are applied to analyze the intra-day transaction series of AstraZeneca and Ericsson. Diagnostic measures such as the root mean square errors (RMSEs) and Akaike information criteria (AICs) are also considered. The paper concludes that the BINAR(1)s with negative binomial and COM–Poisson innovations are among the most suitable models to analyze over-dispersed intra-day transaction series of stocks.
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 | 0.020 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".