Predicting Idiosyncratic Volatility from Stock Market Trade Records: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial markets require a great deal of decision making from the investors and market makers. One metric that can help ease the process of decision making is investment risk which can be measured in two parts; systematic risk and idiosyncratic risk. Clear understanding of the volatilities in each risk component can be a powerful signal in recognizing the right assets to maximize the investment returns. In this paper, we focus on the idiosyncratic volatility values and pre-calculate the idiosyncratic volatility values for 31,198 members of NYSE, Amex and Nasdaq markets for the trades occurring between January 1963 and December 2019. Utilizing a subset of dataset, limited to Nasdaq100 index, we consider the application of machine learning techniques in predicting the idiosyncratic volatility values using the raw trade data to explore a data extension option for the future market trade records that have not yet occurred. We offer a deep learning based regression model and compare it with traditional tree-based methods on a small subset of our per-calculated idiosyncratic volatility dataset. Our analytical results show that the performance of the deep learning techniques is much more robust in comparison to that of the traditional tree-based baselines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".