Forecasting volatility with support vector machine‐based GARCH model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, support vector machine (SVM), a novel artificial neural network (ANN), has been successfully used for financial forecasting. This paper deals with the application of SVM in volatility forecasting under the GARCH framework, the performance of which is compared with simple moving average, standard GARCH, nonlinear EGARCH and traditional ANN‐GARCH models by using two evaluation measures and robust Diebold–Mariano tests. The real data used in this study are daily GBP exchange rates and NYSE composite index. Empirical results from both simulation and real data reveal that, under a recursive forecasting scheme, SVM‐GARCH models significantly outperform the competing models in most situations of one‐period‐ahead volatility forecasting, which confirms the theoretical advantage of SVM. The standard GARCH model also performs well in the case of normality and large sample size, while EGARCH model is good at forecasting volatility under the high skewed distribution. The sensitivity analysis to choose SVM parameters and cross‐validation to determine the stopping point of the recurrent SVM procedure are also examined in this study. Copyright © 2009 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".