Forecasting Beta Using Ultra High Frequency Data
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
ABSTRACT This paper examines if using ultra high frequency (UHF, e.g., tick‐by‐tick) data could improve the accuracy of beta forecasts compared with using only moderately high frequency (MHF, minute‐level) data. We propose a novel two‐step paired t ‐test for performance evaluation. Our test exploits the cross‐sectional variations in the beta forecasts and avoids the issues associated with the traditional approach which requires choosing a proxy for the true beta. Our tests provide strong evidence that using UHF data generally yields more accurate beta forecasts than using MHF data. Furthermore, we show that the UHF estimator consistently belongs to the group of best risk‐hedging performers for portfolios constructed based on both industrial classifications and size and book‐to‐market ratios. However, we also find that using UHF data of a coarser scale (e.g., 5 or 15 s) leads to reduced benefits compared with using tick‐by‐tick data. Our conclusions hold when different UHF estimators and sample periods are used.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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