MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100970776

Bootstrapping realized multivariate volatility measures,” manuscript, Université de Montréal

2007· article· en· W7100970776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBootstrapping (finance)HeteroscedasticityMonte Carlo methodMultivariate statisticsAsymptotic analysisEdgeworth seriesInferenceRegressionStatistical inference
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study bootstrap methods for statistics that are a function of multivariate high frequency returns such as realized regression coefficients and realized covariances and correlations. For these measures of covariation, the Monte Carlo simulation results of Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2004) show that finite sample distortions associated with their feasible asymptotic theory approach may arise if sampling is not too frequent. This motivates our use of the bootstrap as an alternative tool of inference for covariation measures. We consider an i.i.d. bootstrap applied to the vector of returns. We show that the finite sample performance of the bootstrap is superior to the existing first-order asymptotic theory. Nevertheless, and contrary to the existing results in the bootstrap literature for regression models subject to heteroskedasticity in the error term, the Edgeworth expansion for the i.i.d. bootstrap that we develop here shows that this method is not second order accurate. We argue that this is due to the fact that the conditional mean parameters of realized regression models are heterogeneous under stochastic volatility.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207