Quantum Temporal Winds: Turbulence in Financial Markets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Many mathematical formulas need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper “Quantum Temporal Winds: Turbulence in Financial Markets” the Authors Haoran Zheng and Bo Dong use the theory of turbulence in physics to the financial markets.

The paper does not have a clearly defined purpose or a plan of the Authors. There is no description of the subsequent sections in the Introduction. The paper contains many repetitions, errors, and awkward wording. It appears to have been written partly using LLM.

A few detailed remarks:

p. 7 lines 254-267, the same formula repeated twice

p. 7 line 267, \Delta -formula

p 17 lines 614 'the paper has generated a set'

p 17 lines 619-620 'the paper defines'. The Authors define or generate not a paper.

p. 17 section 5.1 and p. 18 section 5.5, two times the same.

pp. 20-24, instead of 'Bessel' everywhere should be 'Bezier'

The paper should be carefully edited again with the Authors' clearly defined plan. The current version should be rejected.

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents an interesting analysis of taking concepts from physics and applying such concepts to the understanding of financial market data. As such, the paper adds to the econophysics literature that takes this approach. The particular emphasis is on the modelling of financial market turbulence using a range of econophysics concepts.

Where the paper could be improved is the demonstration section. The paper uses the S&P500 data as the base for a simulation analysis. The following points need additional work:

1. What is the base S&P sample period, how is that sample period representative, what are the characteristics of the behaviour of the S&P index during that period?

2. What is the framework for the simulation analysis? What distributional assumptions do you make about the data generating process (DGP)? How many simulations did you run? How sensitive are the results to variation in the assumptions about the DGP?

3. As presented your results appear to show a single realisation of the simulation, is that correct or is it the way it is presented? A single realisation in a simulation analysis is not sufficient to draw a general conclusion about the suitability of the model.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Problems reported in the main review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you. Now the paper is ready to be published

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the revisions to the paper. The additional details on the simulation analysis have addressed my comments on the previous version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Rreview attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Problems reported in the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf