MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965402578 · doi:10.1002/for.1134

Forecasting volatility with support vector machine‐based GARCH model

2009· article· en· W1965402578 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaFudan UniversityKyungpook National UniversityDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticitySupport vector machineVolatility (finance)EconometricsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceNormalityArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.239
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it