Risk modeling in crude oil market: a comparison of Markov switching and GARCH models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to deal with the different phases of volatility behavior and the dependence of the variability of the time series on its own past, models allowing for heteroscedasticity like autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH), generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH), or regime‐switching models have been suggested by reserachers. Both types of models are widely used in practice. Design/methodology/approach Both regime‐switching models and GARCH are used in this paper to model and explain the behavior of crude oil prices in order to forecast their volatility. In regime‐switching models, the oil return volatility has a dynamic process whose mean is subject to shifts, which is governed by a two‐state first‐order Markov process. Findings The GARCH models are found to be very useful in modeling a unique stochastic process with conditional variance; regime‐switching models have the advantage of dividing the observed stochastic behavior of a time series into several separate phases with different underlying stochastic processes. Originality/value The regime‐switching models show similar goodness‐of‐fit result to GARCH modeling, while has the advantage of capturing major events affecting the oil market. Daily data of crude oil prices are used from NYMEX Crude Oil market for the period 13 February 2006 up to 21 July 2009.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".