Comparison of Fuzzy Risk Forecast Intervals for Cryptocurrencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-driven volatility models and neuro-volatility models have the potential to revolutionize the area of Computational Finance. Volatility measures the variation of a time series data, and thus it is also a driving factor for the risk forecasting of returns from investment in cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency is a decentralized medium of exchange that relies on cryptographic primitives to facilitate the trustless transfer of value between different parties. Instead of being physical money, cryptocurrency payments exist purely as digital entries on an online ledger called blockchain that describe specific transactions.Many commonly used risk forecasting models do not take into account the uncertainty associated with the volatility of an underlying asset to obtain the risk forecasts. Some tools from the fuzzy set theory can be incorporated into the forecasting models to account for this uncertainty. Interest in the use of hybrid models for fuzzy volatility forecasts is growing. However, a major drawback is that the fuzzy coefficient hybrid models used in fuzzy volatility forecasts are not data-driven. This paper uses fuzzy set theory with data-driven volatility and data-driven neuro-volatility forecasts to study the fuzzy risk forecasts. The study focuses on long-term volatility forecasts with daily price data while briefly exploring forecasting models with high-frequency (hourly) data as an avenue for future research. Simple yet effective models incorporating fuzziness to obtain fuzzy risk volatility forecasts and fuzzy VaR forecasts are presented. The key underlying idea, unlike the existing risk forecasting, is the use of a hybrid nonlinear adaptive fuzzy model for volatility.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".