Changes in the span of systematic risk exposures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a test for deciding whether the linear spaces spanned by the factor exposures of a large cross‐section of assets toward latent systematic risk factors at two distinct points in time are the same. The test uses a panel of asset returns in local windows around the two time points. The asymptotic setup is of joint type: the number of assets and the number of return observations per asset increase asymptotically while the length of both time windows shrinks. We estimate the factor exposures, up to rotation, over the two periods using classical principal component analysis and evaluate their projection discrepancy, which is rotation invariant. This projection discrepancy is then centered with one between factor exposures computed over a partition of the pooled return data into odd and even increments. We derive the limit distribution of the statistic under the null hypothesis and develop an easy‐to‐implement bootstrap for constructing the critical region of the test. The test is applied to intraday financial data to determine whether the linear span of assets' systematic risk exposures differ during a trading day or after a release of important economic information.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it