Data-Driven and Neuro-Volatility Fuzzy Forecasts for Cryptocurrencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forecasting problems in Computational Finance involve modelling the vagueness and imprecision inherent to the financial markets. Fuzzy set theory has a unique ability to quantitatively and qualitatively model and analyze such problems. Volatility forecasting plays an important role in financial risk management and in option pricing. Recently, there has been a growing interest in data-driven volatility models and neurovolatility models for risk forecasting of stocks and index funds. However, even these state-of-the-art models do not take into account the fuzzy volatility in their risk forecasts.Cryptocurrencies are a novel financial asset class based on the Blockchain technology. Cryptocurrencies have gained popularity among retail investors as a financial asset with high risks and high returns. The extremely volatile nature of cryptocurrencies (compared to traditional assets) makes forecasting their volatility more challenging. A simple algorithmic trading approach, Simple Moving Average (SMA) crossover strategy, is used to calculate the Algo returns. This paper provides fuzzy forecasts of the volatility of Algo returns using the data-driven Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (DD-EWMA) and neuro models for six major cryptocurrencies. We also compute and compare fuzzy volatility forecasts of four major tech stocks and Chicago Board Options Exchange’s (CBOE) volatility index (VIX) using DD-EWMA and neuro models. Our experimental results show that the data-driven models produce better forecasts for cryptocurrencies as compared to the neuro models, while for the regular stocks and indexes, no such definitive conclusion could be drawn.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".