MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133033284

Correlation Model Risk and Non-Gaussian Factor Models

2018· dissertation· W7133033284 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julio Antonio Hernandez Bellon

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2018
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFactor analysisCovariance matrixDimension (graph theory)CovarianceVolatility (finance)Principal component analysisMathematical modelGaussianSensitivity (control systems)Predictability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two problems are considered in this thesis. The first is concerned with correlation model risk and the second with non-Gaussian factor modelling of asset returns. A fundamental problem in the application of mathematical finance results in a real world setting, is the dependence of mathematical models on parameters that are hard to observe in markets. The common term for this problem is model risk. The first part of this thesis studies the sensitivity of mathematical objects (prices) to correlation inputs. In high dimensions, computational complexities increase faster than exponentially. A typical way to deal with this problem is to introduce a principal component approach for dimension reduction. We consider the price of portfolios of options and approximations obtained by modifying the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix, then proceed to find analytical upper bounds on the magnitude of the difference between the price and the approximation, under different assumptions. In the second part of this thesis, the assumptions and estimation methods of four different factor models with time-varying parameters are discussed. These models are based on Sharpe’s single index model. The first model assumes that residuals follow a Gaussian white noise process, while the other three approaches combine the structure of a single factor model with time-varying parameters, with dynamic volatility (GARCH) assumptions on the model components. The four approaches then are used to estimate the time-varying alphas and betas of three different hedge fund strategies. Results are compared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207