Complex network analysis of volatility spillovers between global financial indicators and G20 stock markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the dynamic transmission mechanism of volatility spillovers between key global financial indicators and G20 stock markets. To examine volatility spillover relations, we combine a bivariate GARCH-BEKK model with complex network theory. Specifically, we construct a volatility network of international financial markets utilising the spatial connectedness of spillovers (consisting of nodes and edges). The findings show that spillover relations between global variables and G20 markets vary significantly across five identified sub-periods. Notably, networks are much denser in crisis periods compared to non-crisis periods. In comparing two crisis periods, Global Financial Crisis (2008) and COVID-19 Crisis (2020) periods, the network statistics suggest that volatility spillovers in the latter period are more transitive and intense than the former. This suggests that financial volatility spreads more rapidly and directly through key financial indicators to the G20 stock markets. For example, oil and bonds are the largest volatility senders, while the markets of Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Africa, and Brazil are the main volatility receivers. In the former crisis, the source of financial volatility concentrates primarily in the USA, Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia, which are the largest volatility senders and receivers. China emerges as generally the least sensitive market to external 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".