Institutions Center, FCAR, IFM2 and SSHRC. For helpful comments we thank Michael Brandt, Michel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider three sets of phenomena that feature prominently -- and separately -- in the financial economics literature: conditional mean dependence (or lack thereof) in asset returns, dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return signs with implications for market timing, and dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return volatilities. We show that they are very much interrelated, and we explore the relationships in detail. Among other things, we show that: (1) Volatility dependence produces sign dependence, so long as expected returns are nonzero. Hence one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence. (2) The standard finding of little or no conditional mean dependence is entirely consistent with a significant degree of sign dependence and volatility dependence. In particular, sign dependence does not imply market inefficiency. (3) Sign dependence is not likely to be found via analysis of sign autocorrelations, because the nature of sign dependence is highly nonlinear. (4) Sign dependence is not likely to be found in very high-frequency (e.g., daily) or very low-frequency (e.g., annual) returns. Instead, it is more likely to be found at intermediate return horizons. Acknowledgments: This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, the Wharton Financial Institutions Center, FCAR, IFM2 and SSHRC. For helpful comments we thank Michael Brandt, Michel Dacorogna, Graham Elliott, Christian Gourieroux, Clive Granger, Joanna Jasiak, Blake LeBaron, Bruce Lehman, Nour Meddahi, Sergei Sarkissian, Frank Schorfheide, Allan Timmermann, Hal White, and seminar participants at McGill University, UC San Diego and at the Third Annual Conference on Financial Econometrics at the University of Waterloo. Sean Campbell a...
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.417 | 0.121 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".