The impact of parameter and model uncertainty on market risk predictions from GARCH‐type models
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 We study the effect of parameter and model uncertainty on the left‐tail of predictive densities and in particular on VaR forecasts. To this end, we evaluate the predictive performance of several GARCH‐type models estimated via Bayesian and maximum likelihood techniques. In addition to individual models, several combination methods are considered, such as Bayesian model averaging and (censored) optimal pooling for linear, log or beta linear pools. Daily returns for a set of stock market indexes are predicted over about 13 years from the early 2000s. We find that Bayesian predictive densities improve the VaR backtest at the 1% risk level for single models and for linear and log pools. We also find that the robust VaR backtest exhibited by linear and log pools is better than the backtest of single models at the 5% risk level. Finally, the equally weighted linear pool of Bayesian predictives tends to be the best VaR forecaster in a set of 42 forecasting techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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