Mutually Exciting Point Processes with Latency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel statistical approach to estimating latency, defined as the time it takes to learn about an event and generate response to this event, is proposed. Our approach only requires a multidimensional point process describing event times, which circumvents the use of more detailed datasets which may not even be available. We consider the class of parametric Hawkes models capturing clustering effects and define latency as a known function of kernel parameters, typically the mode of kernel function. Since latency is not well-defined when the kernel is exponential, we consider maximum likelihood estimation in the mixture of generalized gamma kernels case and derive the feasible central limit theory with in-fill asymptotics. As a byproduct, central limit theory for a latency estimator and related tests are provided. Our numerical study corroborates the theory. An empirical application on high frequency data transactions from the New York Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange shows that latency estimates for the United States and Canadian stock exchanges vary between 1 and 6 milliseconds from 2020 to 2021. Supplementary materials for this article are available online, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".