Data-Driven Adaptive Regularized Risk Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regularization methods allow data scientists and risk managers to enhance the predictive power of a statistical model and improve the quality of risk forecasts. Financial risk forecasting is about forecasting volatility, Value at Risk (VaR), expected shortfall (ES) and model risk ratio. While regularized estimates have been shown to perform well in model selection and parameter estimation, their applications in financial risk forecasting has not yet been studied. In this paper, regularized adaptive forecasts and computationally efficient forecasting algorithms for volatility, VaR, ES and model risk are studied using various regularization methods such as ridge, lasso and elastic net. Sample sign correlation of standardized log returns (standardized by volatility forecasts) is used to identify the conditional distribution of the log returns series and provide regularized interval forecasts as well as regularized probability forecasts. Superiority of the regularized risk forecasts is demonstrated using different volatility models including a recently proposed generalized data-driven volatility model in [8]. Validation of the regularized risk forecasts using real financial data is given. Regularized probabilistic forecasts for stationary time series models are also discussed in some detail.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".