On the forecasting accuracy of multivariate GARCH models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper addresses the question of the selection of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic (GARCH) models in terms of variance matrix forecasting accuracy, with a particular focus on relatively large‐scale problems. We consider 10 assets from the New York Stock Exchange and compare 125 models based 1‐, 5‐ and 20‐day‐ahead conditional variance forecasts over a period of 10 years using the model confidence set (MCS) and the superior predictive ability (SPA) tests. Model performance is evaluated using four statistical loss functions which account for different types and degrees of asymmetry with respect to over‐/under‐predictions. When considering the full sample, MCS results are strongly driven by short periods of high market instability during which multivariate GARCH models appear to be inaccurate. Over relatively unstable periods, i.e. the dot‐com bubble, the set of superior models is composed of sophisticated specifications such as orthogonal and dynamic conditional correlation (DCC), both with leverage effect in the conditional variances. However, unlike the DCC models, our results show that the orthogonal specifications tend to underestimate the conditional variance. Over calm periods, a simple assumption like constant conditional correlation and symmetry in the conditional variances cannot be rejected. Finally, during the 2007–2008 financial crisis, accounting for non‐stationarity in the conditional variance process generates superior forecasts. The SPA test suggests that, independently from the period, the best models do not provide significantly better forecasts than the DCC model of Engle (2002,Journal of Business and Economic Statistics20: 339–350) with leverage in the conditional variances of the returns. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".