  We present a careful analysis of possible issues on the application of the
self-excited Hawkes process to high-frequency financial data. We carefully
analyze a set of effects leading to significant biases in the estimation of the
"criticality index" n that quantifies the degree of endogeneity of how much
past events trigger future events. We report a number of model biases that are
intrinsic to the estimation of brnaching ratio (n) when using power law memory
kernels. We demonstrate that the calibration of the Hawkes process on mixtures
of pure Poisson process with changes of regime leads to completely spurious
apparent critical values for the branching ratio (n~1) while the true value is
actually n=0. More generally, regime shifts on the parameters of the Hawkes
model and/or on the generating process itself are shown to systematically lead
to a significant upward bias in the estimation of the branching ratio. We also
demonstrate the importance of the preparation of the high-frequency financial
data and give special care to the decrease of quality of the timestamps of tick
data due to latency and grouping of messages to packets by the stock exchange.
Altogether, our careful exploration of the caveats of the calibration of the
Hawkes process stresses the need for considering all the above issues before
any conclusion can be sustained. In this respect, because the above effects are
plaguing their analyses, the claim by Hardiman, Bercot and Bouchaud (2013) that
financial market have been continuously functioning at or close to criticality
(n~1) cannot be supported. In contrast, our previous results on E-mini S&P 500
Futures Contracts and on major commodity future contracts are upheld.
