MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396219991 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17050182

Forecasting the Performance of the Energy Sector at the Saudi Stock Exchange Market by Using GBM and GFBM Models

2024· article· en· W4396219991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Alhagyan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconometricsStochastic volatilityMean absolute percentage errorMean squared errorEconomicsStock marketSABR volatility modelStock exchangeStock market indexImplied volatilityGeometric Brownian motionRealized varianceStochastic modellingMathematicsStatisticsEconomyDiffusion process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future index prices are viewed as a critical issue for any trader and investor. In the literature, various models have been developed for forecasting index prices. For example, the geometric Brownian motion (GBM) model is one of the most popular tools. This work examined four types of GBM models in terms of the presence of memory and the kind of volatility estimations. These models include the classical GBM model with memoryless and constant volatility assumptions, the SVGBM model with memoryless and stochastic volatility assumptions, the GFBM model with memory and constant volatility assumptions, and the SVGFBM model with memory and stochastic volatility assumptions. In this study, these models were utilized in an empirical study to forecast the future index price of the energy sector in the Saudi Stock Exchange Market. The assessment was led by utilizing two error standards, the mean square error (MSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). The results show that the SVGFBM model demonstrates the highest accuracy, resulting in the lowest MSE and MAPE, while the GBM model was the least accurate of all the models under study. These results affirm the benefits of combining memory and stochastic volatility assumptions into the GBM model, which is also supported by the findings of numerous earlier studies. Furthermore, the findings of this study show that GFBM models are more accurate than GBM models, regardless of the type of volatility. Furthermore, under the same type of memory, the models with a stochastic volatility assumption are more accurate than the corresponding models with a constant volatility assumption. In general, all models considered in this work showed a high accuracy, with MAPE ≤ 10%. This indicates that these models can be applied in real financial environments. Based on the results of this empirical study, the future of the energy sector in Saudi Arabia is forecast to be predictable and stable, and we urge financial investors and stockholders to trade and invest in this sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207