Empirical Calibration of XGBoost Model Hyperparameters Using the Bayesian Optimisation Method: The Case of Bitcoin Volatility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensemble learning techniques continue to show greater interest in forecasting the volatility of cryptocurrency assets. In particular, XGBoost, an ensemble learning technique, has been shown in recent studies to provide the most accurate forecast of Bitcoin volatility. However, the performance of XGBoost largely depends on the tuning of its hyperparameters. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of the Bayesian optimization method for tuning the XGBoost hyperparameters for Bitcoin volatility forecasting. We chose to explore this method rather than the most commonly used manual, grid, and random hyperparameter choices due to its ability to predict the most promising areas of hyperparameter spaces through exploitation and exploration using acquisition functions, as well as its ability to minimize error with a reduced amount of time and resources required to find an optimal configuration. The obtained XGBoost configuration improves the forecast accuracy of Bitcoin volatility. Our empirical results, based on letting the data speak for itself, could be used for a comparative study on Bitcoin volatility forecasting. This would also be important for volatility trading, option pricing, and managing portfolios related to Bitcoin.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it