跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究日内高频资产价格,并以单位根检验判断随机游走、均值回归和爆炸性。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Sébastien Laurent
Shuping Shi

基于高频数据的单位根检验

研究问题
如何利用日内高频数据实时监测资产价格偏离随机游走,并避免跳跃影响对均值回归或爆炸性检验的干扰?
方法与思路
作者在填充渐近框架下扩展单位根检验,纳入价格跳跃,并推导随机游走原假设及两类备择下的极限分布。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称忽略跳跃可能严重扭曲检验尺寸;模拟表现满意,纳斯达克例子显示1999年末爆炸性及2015年末均值回归。
阅读关注点
应核对跳跃的建模与处理方式、实时监测规则、填充渐近所需条件,以及十分钟数据应用对频率和样本区间的敏感性。
阅读边界
所给摘要将抛售期写为2015–2106,年份需核对;仅据 Crossref 摘要,不能评估具体检验误差或其他版本变化。

原文摘要

Deviations of asset prices from the random walk dynamic imply the predictability of asset returns and thus have important implications for portfolio construction and risk management. This paper proposes a real-time monitoring device for such deviations using intraday high-frequency data. The proposed procedures are based on unit root tests with in-fill asymptotics but extended to take the empirical features of high-frequency financial data (particularly jumps) into consideration. We derive the limiting distributions of the tests under both the null hypothesis of a random walk with jumps and the alternative of mean reversion/explosiveness with jumps. The limiting results show that ignoring the presence of jumps could potentially lead to severe size distortions of both the standard left-sided (against mean reversion) and right-sided (against explosiveness) unit root tests. The simulation results reveal satisfactory performance of the proposed tests even with data from a relatively short time span. As an illustration, we apply the procedure to the Nasdaq composite index at the 10-minute frequency over two periods: around the peak of the dot-com bubble and during the 2015–2106 stock market sell-off. We find strong evidence of explosiveness in asset prices in late 1999 and mean reversion in late 2015. We also show that accounting for jumps when testing the random walk hypothesis on intraday data is empirically relevant and that ignoring jumps can lead to different conclusions.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文