Forecasting commodity prices: GARCH, jumps, and mean reversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In examining stochastic models for commodity prices, central questions often revolve around time‐varying trend, stochastic convenience yield and volatility, and mean reversion. This paper seeks to assess and compare alternative approaches to modelling these effects, with focus on forecast performance. Three specifications are considered: (i) random‐walk models with GARCH and normal or Student‐t innovations; (ii) Poisson‐based jump‐diffusion models with GARCH and normal or Student‐t innovations; and (iii) mean‐reverting models that allow for uncertainty in equilibrium price. Our empirical application makes use of aluminium spot and futures price series at daily and weekly frequencies. Results show: (i) models with stochastic convenience yield outperform all other competing models, and for all forecast horizons; (ii) the use of futures prices does not always yield lower forecast error values compared to the use of spot prices; and (iii) within the class of (G)ARCH random‐walk models, no model uniformly dominates the other. Copyright © 2008 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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".