Forecasting realized volatility: a Bayesian model‐averaging approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How to measure and model volatility is an important issue in finance. Recent research uses high‐frequency intraday data to construct ex post measures of daily volatility. This paper uses a Bayesian model‐averaging approach to forecast realized volatility. Candidate models include autoregressive and heterogeneous autoregressive specifications based on the logarithm of realized volatility, realized power variation, realized bipower variation, a jump and an asymmetric term. Applied to equity and exchange rate volatility over several forecast horizons, Bayesian model averaging provides very competitive density forecasts and modest improvements in point forecasts compared to benchmark models. We discuss the reasons for this, including the importance of using realized power variation as a predictor. Bayesian model averaging provides further improvements to density forecasts when we move away from linear models and average over specifications that allow for GARCH effects in the innovations to log‐volatility. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it