MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404635088 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17120531

Fitting the Seven-Parameter Generalized Tempered Stable Distribution to Financial Data

2024· article· en· W4404635088 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aubain Nzokem, Daniel Maposa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEstimation theoryFractional Brownian motionProbability density functionShape parameterStatisticsDistribution (mathematics)Function (biology)Location parameterApplied mathematicsProbability distributionBrownian motionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes and implements a methodology to fit a seven-parameter Generalized Tempered Stable (GTS) distribution to financial data. The nonexistence of the mathematical expression of the GTS probability density function makes maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) inadequate for providing parameter estimations. Based on the function characteristic and the fractional Fourier transform (FRFT), we provide a comprehensive approach to circumvent the problem and yield a good parameter estimation of the GTS probability. The methodology was applied to fit two heavy-tailed data (Bitcoin and Ethereum returns) and two peaked data (S&P 500 and SPY ETF returns). For each historical data, the estimation results show that six-parameter estimations are statistically significant except for the local parameter, μ. The goodness of fit was assessed through Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Anderson–Darling, and Pearson’s chi-squared statistics. While the two-parameter geometric Brownian motion (GBM) hypothesis is always rejected, the GTS distribution fits significantly with a very high p-value and outperforms the Kobol, Carr–Geman–Madan–Yor, and bilateral Gamma distributions.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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