Risk Prediction of International Stock Markets with Complex Spatio-Temporal Correlations: A Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolutional Regression Model Integrating Uncertainty Quantification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against the backdrop of the “dual circulation” development pattern and the in-depth advancement of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the interconnection between China and global financial markets has significantly intensified. The spatio-temporal correlation risks faced in cross-border investment activities have become highly complex, posing a severe challenge to traditional investment risk prediction methods. Existing research has three limitations: first, traditional analytical tools struggle to capture the dynamic spatio-temporal correlations among financial markets; second, mainstream deep learning models lack the ability to directly output interpretable economic parameters; third, the uncertainty of model prediction results has not been systematically quantified for a long time, leading to a lack of credibility assessment in practical applications. To address these issues, this study constructs a spatio-temporal graph convolutional neural network panel regression model (STGCN-PDR) that incorporates uncertainty quantification. This model innovatively designs a hybrid architecture of “one layer of spatial graph convolution + two layers of temporal convolution”, modeling the spatial dependencies among global stock markets through graph networks and capturing the dynamic evolution patterns of market fluctuations with temporal convolutional networks. It particularly embeds an interpretable regression layer, enabling the model to directly output regression coefficients with economic significance, significantly enhancing the decision-making reference value of risk prediction. By designing multi-round random initialization perturbation experiments and introducing the coefficient of variation index to quantify the stability of model parameters, it achieves a systematic assessment of prediction uncertainty. Empirical results based on stock index data from 20 countries show that compared with the benchmark models, STGCN-PDR demonstrates significant advantages in both spatio-temporal feature extraction efficiency and risk prediction accuracy, providing a more interpretable and reliable quantitative analysis tool for cross-border investment decisions in complex market environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".